Save Austin Now Treasurer Leland Bickers presents signatures in February for a measure requiring an external audit, which appears on the Nov. 3 ballot as Proposition I. The city has its own external audit underway, but Prop I author Bill Aleshire told our Editorial Board, “Ours is more comprehensive.”
Sara Diggins/Austin American-Statesman
As it appears on the ballot, Austin’s Proposition I suggests a false choice: audit or no audit?
But it’s not as if no one is scrutinizing the spending at City Hall. A highly effective city auditor’s office, with a staff of two dozen people, already examines contracts, investigates potential waste or misuse of funds and even produces podcasts about their findings.
Article continues below this ad
Plus a new city ordinance requires an external efficiency audit of every city department every three years, and a consultant is now tackling that $5.2 million endeavor.
How many more audits does Austin need?
Prop I demands another layer. The citizen-led ballot initiative by Save Austin Now calls for an “Independent Affordability and Efficiency Initiative” — an even more expansive external audit — every five years.
We all have a stake in ensuring taxpayer dollars are used efficiently. And with last year’s defeat of the Proposition Q property tax hike, voters sent a clear message that City Hall must demonstrate greater fiscal accountability.
Article continues below this ad
But at some point, hiring even more consultants becomes its own exercise in inefficiency, while Prop I contains other worrisome provisions. We recommend voters reject the measure Nov. 3.
READ MORE: Statesman Editorial Board Texas General Election Recommendations
Dueling audits arrive
We understand the frustrations that gave rise to Prop I. We opposed last year’s Prop Q over concerns about years of rising tax bills, diminishing returns and, at times, careless use of taxpayer dollars.
Article continues below this ad
Since 2018, the typical homeowner’s city tax bill has risen from $1,317 to $2,188 — a steep increase that was partially self-inflicted, as voters approved the tax hike funding Project Connect and numerous city bond packages.
Austinites want assurances their dollars are being used well, and an audit emerged as the solution. From separate camps came dueling audit proposals.
While Save Austin Now was gathering petition signatures to put Prop I on the ballot, Mayor Kirk Watson pushed ahead with his own external audit proposal, which the City Council passed in February. As the city hired Public Works LLC to do the job, Watson promised a City Hall review that will be “transformative and comprehensive.”
That should have been a win for everyone. Instead, Save Austin Now put its own audit proposal before voters.
Article continues below this ad
“Ours is more comprehensive,” Prop I author Bill Aleshire, a taxpayer advocate and former Travis County judge, told our Editorial Board. A Prop I audit would not only examine whether services are provided efficiently and produce the desired outcomes; it would study whether city services were affordable for households and businesses “of various levels of income and wealth,” Aleshire said.
If voters approved Prop I, that effort would likely get blended somehow with the city-initiated audit already underway. The added features of Prop I entail more work for the consultant, which would make the review more expensive. This is where the greater concern comes in.
Austin City Council candidate Misael Ramos listens Oct. 7 during a rally opposing Proposition I. The measure would requires an outside auditor to identify enough savings to cover its own contract, creating a skewed incentive to find unnecessary cuts.
Jay Janner/Austin American-Statesman
Pressure to find cuts
Prop I requires the outside auditor to identify enough savings to cover its own contract. That may sound appealing: The audit will pay for itself.
Article continues below this ad
It really means the auditor would start with a quota: Find a certain dollar amount in cuts.
Rather than follow the evidence where it leads, the auditor would hunt for a predetermined amount of savings. And that self-funding dictate would stand for future audits, even after earlier ones delivered efficiencies that leave less to cut.
At the same time, city budgets are only growing tighter: State law caps the annual increases at 3.5%, a cushion quickly absorbed by the rising costs of healthcare, fuel and cost-of-living raises for staff. And the largest chunk of Austin’s general fund pays for policing, which by state law cannot be cut.
At some point the search for savings will meet the law of diminishing returns.
Article continues below this ad
Aleshire argues voters can later repeal Prop I if the city runs out of places to cut. In our view, the better alternative is to avoid this predicament by rejecting Prop I now.
Aleshire also argues Prop I does something else important: It ensures an audit would happen because it would be enshrined in the city charter, essentially the city’s constitution.
But the city-initiated audit is already happening. And it would take a supermajority vote — at least nine of the 11 City Council members — to change the ordinance that set it in motion.
ALSO READ: How we reach our endorsements — and why your vote is yours
Article continues below this ad
Auditors already working
Still, the public’s skepticism of City Hall is well earned. In pressing ahead with a $295 million parks and libraries bond we oppose on the Nov. 3 ballot — and amending the city’s own policies to enable more borrowing — some City Council members have bristled at the fiscal restraint that is needed.
An expansive external audit, whether it’s the city-initiated one or Prop I, will surely find inefficiencies and questionable use of funds. A similar review in Houston found a duplication of vendor contracts across departments and a significant number of managers supervising few people, all areas ripe for streamlining.
Article continues below this ad
And it’s true: Improvements are needed.
But those examples illustrate something else: the effectiveness of the Austin City Auditor’s Office, which investigated and publicly reported those issues, providing clear guidance on how city departments should strengthen their procedures.
Between that office and the city-initiated efficiency review by Public Works LLC, Austin has meaningful auditing efforts in place.
Article continues below this ad
Prop I offers to tackle a problem that’s already being addressed. The more comprehensive review would come at a higher cost, with a skewed incentive for the auditor to identify unnecessary cuts.
None of this delivers efficiency for Austinites. We recommend voters reject Prop I.