Proposition I, backed by the political action committee Save Austin Now, would amend the City Charter to require independent performance audits of city departments. The charter amendment would also require an audit within a year of a proposed property-tax increase and public analysis of how city taxes and fees affect residents and businesses at different income levels.

The proposal comes on top of the city auditor’s office, which regularly examines city operations for waste, fraud and abuse, and a Comprehensive Efficiency Assessment Program approved by the City Council in February. Mayor Kirk Watson spearheaded that program, and its auditor has been selected and begun work.

Supporters say putting the new requirements in the charter would make them more durable than the council-approved assessment program, which a future council could change. Save Austin Now attorney Bill Aleshire also points to a 2024 Houston audit by Ernst & Young, which he said cost $580,000 and identified more than $100 million in potential savings.

Opponents say the existing programs make Proposition I unnecessary and question the proposed system’s cost and incentives. At an Oct. 7 rally outside City Hall, labor groups, community advocates and six of Austin’s 10 council members urged voters to reject the measure.

Council Member Vanessa Fuentes said the charter mandate could leave the city dependent on a small pool of large consulting firms. She estimated an audit could cost at least $5 million, and possibly $10 million or more, and argued that a contractor paid under the proposal could be motivated to recommend cuts that exceed its fee. Fuentes said such proposals could affect services including Barton Springs’ operating hours or library schedules.

Aleshire disputed both the cost estimate and the concern about unsuitable recommendations. He said firms would need to identify savings greater than their fee to win contracts, but could lower their bids if they believed savings would be harder to find. He described the work as professional performance auditing, rather than politically driven cuts.

Critics at the rally also questioned Save Austin Now’s broader agenda, citing its support for a 2024 police contract and earlier proposals to increase police staffing. U.S. Rep. Greg Casar accused wealthy backers of the group of seeking to weaken city government. Aleshire rejected that criticism, calling it a campaign strategy, and cited polling by Save Austin Now that he said found 40% of Democrats opposed Proposition Q, a property-tax proposal that voters rejected last November.

Brydan Summers of AFSCME Local 1642 said his union supports making city government more efficient but is wary of the measure’s requirements. He argued that Proposition I uses a broadly popular goal—efficiency—to advance a more consequential policy change.

The central dispute is whether Proposition I would provide lasting, useful scrutiny of city spending or duplicate existing oversight while committing Austin to expensive audits and potentially disruptive recommendations.