The city of Austin is set to undergo an audit, with voters slated to decide the fate of a proposed measure this fall. Earlier this year, the Austin City Council voted to establish its own audit program, and they are currently in the process of selecting a contractor to carry it out. However, the Save Austin Now Political Action Committee is advocating for a separate initiative that would mandate a thorough financial review by an external entity.
Austin City Clerk Erika Brady confirmed this week that a citizen-driven petition aimed at amending the city charter to include a requirement for regular external audits of all city funds, departments, and assets can be placed on the ballot in November. To qualify for the ballot, such petitions must gather a minimum of 20,000 signatures from registered voters in Austin. The Save Austin Now PAC has already submitted over 21,000 signatures this month.
Co-chair of Save Austin Now, Matt Mackowiak, announced that the campaign phase is now underway. “If Austinites want to see their tax dollars spent wisely and efficiently, then we must pass this outside audit charter amendment,” he stated.
This ballot initiative has gained significant attention, particularly as Austin seeks to rebuild trust and demonstrate fiscal responsibility following the defeat of Proposition Q, a proposed tax increase that would have raised over $100 million in property tax revenue in November 2025. Mackowiak emphasized that voters expressed dissatisfaction with the city’s spending practices last November, and implementing an audit would help hold the Austin City Council accountable. “They’re never going to be able to jam taxpayers in the same way. They’re going to have to complete an audit at least a year before calling for a tax rate election,” he remarked. “The days of viewing Austin taxpayers as a limitless piggybank are over.”
In December, City Manager Spencer Watson announced plans for an independent, comprehensive audit of city services, which received unanimous approval from the City Council in February. Watson argued that this method would yield quicker results and allow for more flexible rule adjustments as necessary. An independent reviewer is currently being selected, with the audit expected to commence within the next year and recur every three years.
Watson asserted that the ordinance in place is a more adaptable tool compared to a charter amendment, as it can evolve with government needs. For instance, modifying or repealing the ordinance would necessitate a supermajority approval from the council, which requires at least nine votes.
Conversely, Mackowiak contended that the city’s ordinance lacks permanence. “An ordinance can be undone or changed at any time with the proper votes,” he explained. “It’s not a permanent reform, or even a semi-permanent reform. It could only benefit us once. A charter amendment, however, can only be modified through another charter amendment.”
He also highlighted that the Save Austin Now petition includes stricter requirements, mandating that an external contractor conduct the audit, which would encompass performance assessments of vendors and contracts, as well as scrutinizing expenditures related to Austin Energy and Austin Water. This audit would occur at least every five years. “The aim is to eliminate waste, fraud, and duplication,” Mackowiak noted. “Ultimately, it should lead to a budget that more effectively delivers essential services—those that taxpayers rely on.”
Watson countered that the petition is politically motivated and an attack on local governance. “The ordinance we have in place—calling for the same independence as the SAN petition—accomplishes the goals of the petition without the inherent flaws,” he stated. “If there are issues, we can address them.”
Conducting the audit is anticipated to be a costly endeavor, though the exact expenses remain uncertain. The city plans to utilize funds allocated in the City Auditor’s budget for this purpose. In contrast, the PAC’s proposal suggests that the costs be offset by the savings identified by the contractor, which must surpass their fees.
Both parties acknowledge the necessity of auditing the city’s expenditures, particularly in light of impending budget cuts this summer. Mark Littlefield, a local political consultant, emphasized that restoring residents’ trust hinges on transparency regarding financial allocations. “It’s akin to marriage therapy, where rebuilding trust requires consistent actions over time,” he said. “I believe that is what Mayor Watson and the council are striving for.”
The audit referendum will appear on the ballot alongside several other city charter proposals and a number of City Council races this November. The council is expected to officially place the petition on the ballot later this summer.
