I can’t put it off any longer. It’s time to begin our coverage of the Prop Q election. That’s the election item on whether to raise the City of Austin property tax to the tune of $201 more per year on the “typical homeowner.” That $201 comes on top of a $268.23 increase on the “typical homeowner” in City Manager T.C. Broadnax’s proposed budget which Council passed in August, with Marc Duchen voting no.
Broadnax’s budget included a 3.5% property tax increase, which is the most allowed under state law without requiring passage by voters. The Austin City Council, except for Duchen, voted to ask voters to add another five cents per $100 valuation. That would yield about $108 million for the City’s General Fund.
Prop Q will be at the bottom of the November 4 election, right under 17 Texas constitutional amendments.
It’s an important local election and a tough choice for many Austinites. Most voters want to make sure that basic City services are adequately funded and many also want social programs to be generously endowed. At the same time tax increases are already having a serious impact on Austin’s affordability and more taxes would increase that impact. Also, some voters wonder whether it is a sound idea to provide the current Council that level of additional money to spend.
It’s a tough call and an important one for Austin. Consequently elected officials and scores of community leaders are stepping forward to lead thoughtful discussions on the matter. City executives and financial staff are standing by ready to provide strictly factual information on the issues at stake in the election.
Just kidding.
This election is going to be about Donald Trump.
The campaign to pass Prop Q kicked off in earnest last week, naming itself the Love Austin So Much campaign. For example I received a text which promised that Prop Q “will restore Trump cuts to Austin and prevent catastrophic cuts to firefighters, EMS, parks, pools, libraries, meals on wheels emergency shelters, domestic violence prevention, and more.” This text came from “a volunteer with the Love Austin (So Much) Campaign in support of Prop Q.” She also announced: “Breaking News: Travis County Democratic Party ENDORSES Proposition Q.”
I texted back asking if she could tell me, “What cuts did Trump make that Prop Q restores?”
The person actually replied, well sort of: “I understand. To learn more about Prop Q, you can visit www.loveaustinsomuch.com,” the website of the pro-Prop Q campaign.
So I visited the campaign website. There I was greeted by menacing headshots of President Donald Trump and Texas Governor Greg Abbott. Below them was the message: “Tell Trump and Abbott: Austin takes care of its own.”
Immediately beneath that was the statement (Emphasis theirs): “DONALD TRUMP has slashed Austin’s federal funding. GREG ABBOTT has forced City Hall to ask Austinites to fill the gap.”
Clearly the first sentence states that Trump has cut federal funding to Austin. And, the second sentence apparently refers to Abbott having signed the 2019 bill that forces City governing bodies to go to the voters for property tax increases that exceed 3.5% per year.
Next the campaign site’s wording gets just a little bit trickier: “PROPOSITION Q generates vital funding to cover Austin’s budget shortfall and restore some of the Trump Administration cuts, with resources dedicated to helping people experiencing homelessness, supporting public health and safety, and maintaining our parks and libraries.”
Let’s take a closer look at that sentence. There is a lot packed in there and it will take more than one article to even come near unpacking it completely. For now, let’s concentrate on the assertion that Prop Q will “restore some of the Trump Administration cuts.” A reader might reasonably expect that examples of “some of the Trump Administration cuts” might follow, along with a discussion of how Prop Q would “restore some” of those cuts. But, no.
I could only find one example of a Trump cut on the Love Austin So Much website. It said, “Prop. Q protects public health initiatives threatened by Trump’s grant cuts, including immunizations.” The cuts mentioned are to grants from federal COVID funds; two of which were scheduled to end in May and June of 2025. Those two began in 2021. A third grant began in 2020 and was scheduled to end in July 2026. Trump canceled all three on March 24, 2025.
It wasn’t particularly nice of Trump to cut these funds, but it seems sort of a thin reed on which to build a campaign for a major tax increase. We’ll have more on that further down, but I feel the need to break off and explain why I’m bringing this up.
Why Am I Saying This?
One, I’m not trying to defend Donald Trump. I’m just seeking a rational and factual discussion on Prop Q. Here’s my thinking. The pro-Prop Q campaign is leading with Donald Trump and how approving Prop Q will “restore” at least some of the cuts he’s made to Austin’s budget. Given that, I believe it is important to establish what cuts Trump has inflicted on the City of Austin’s budget and how Prop Q would restore those cuts. Call me old fashioned.
In earlier years I think the rationale for what I say above would would be self evident to most people, and not really need explaining. But, so much has become contorted during the Trump years — on both sides of the political divide — that I feel the need to explain why it is important to identify the “Trump Administration cuts” that are being alleged and how they will allegedly be restored by raising City property taxes.
Council Members Ryan Alter, Zo Qadri and Chito Vela are among the Council Members campaigning for voters to approve a property tax increase. The Mayor and the entire Council are supporting, except for Council Member Marc Duchen.
The principle is really simple. If a campaign is alleging something, but not providing any proof or evidence of their claims, then there is a high likelihood that that campaign is not telling the truth and is attempting to manipulate and mislead voters. It has traditionally been the duty of the press to examine such claims.
If a campaign is alleging something, but not providing any proof or evidence of their claims, then there is a high likelihood that that campaign is not telling the truth and is attempting to manipulate and mislead voters. It has traditionally been the duty of the press to examine such claims.
Furthermore, as most people realize, Donald Trump is extremely unpopular with a huge majority of Austinites. So if the electorate can be convinced that passing the property tax increase is a way of getting back at Trump or reversing an action that he took, then it is much more likely to pass. This type of tactic has worked in Austin before, something we have previously reported in these pages.
For instance, in his 2024 reelection bid District Attorney José Garza attacked his Democratic primary opponent as the “MAGA candidate” and accused him of getting “MAGA” money without providing a single example. Later, in the race for Council Place 7, Mike Siegel slimed his opponent and longtime NAACP state leader Gary Bledsoe as MAGA because of contributions given to a PAC supporting Bledsoe by people who had also contributed to Trump. By the way, by law Bledsoe could not coordinate with the PAC and he did not. Siegel won by a narrow margin and was a Council leader in getting the tax hike on the ballot.
Once again, raising questions and pointing out things like this is a customary duty of the media.
Trying to Find the Facts
First I sought to get the facts of the matter from a neutral source. Traditionally during bond elections City management and staff provide neutral factual information about bond elections. So, I sent an email to Ed Van Eenoo and Kerri Lang, two top officials in the City’s financial office and to the City’s Chief Communications Director Jessica King. I asked what cuts to the City’s federal funding the second Trump administration has made so far and which of those cuts Prop Q would restore. I also asked for clean copies of all amendments, and amendments to amendments, that the Council made during budget deliberations that resulted in Prop Q.
I sent that email on Tuesday September 30 and asked for a reply by Friday October 3. I never received a reply of any kind.
I was not totally surprised that my email and questions were ignored. I can’t know for certain why they didn’t reply. I do realize, however, that answering the questions could potentially put staff members in a very tough spot. That’s because they might have to provide information that would contradict what people campaigning for Prop Q — including the Mayor and Council Members — are telling the public. The Love Austin So Much website features endorsements from Mayor Kirk Watson and nine Council Members, everybody but Marc Duchen.
I do realize that answering the questions (I asked) could potentially put staff members in a very tough spot. That’s because they might have to provide information that would contradict what people campaigning for Prop Q — including the Mayor and Council Members — are telling the public.
So I understand why City executives might not answer, but hey, being a high level city official is a tough job. As the saying goes, that’s why they get the big bucks; but the City has an obligation to provide factual information to the citizenry about municipal elections.
Next I wrote to the Love Austin So Much campaign and to the head of the Travis County Party, Doug Greco. I also sent the same questions to the Mayor and all the City Council Members. I asked basically the same questions that I asked City staff, to identify Trump cuts that affected the City of Austin’s budget and which Trump cuts that Prop Q would “restore.”
I sent these questions out on Sunday afternoon October 5 and asked for replies by the next afternoon at 3. Some might see this as a quick deadline, but I was counting on the campaign staff having learned what Trump cuts were made before they started basing their campaign on that topic. Also, I expected that the Mayor and Council Members would have this information readily at hand.
The only person who replied by the deadline was Travis County Democratic Party chair Doug Greco. He said in a statement, “The Travis County Democratic Party has voted to endorse the City of Austin Proposition Q. I personally supported it because as a former AISD teacher and grassroots organizer, I believe the social service, education, and workforce programs it could help fund are a crucial investment in working families.” Greco had experience with City social programs in his former role as Director and lead organizer of Central Texas Interfaith.
No other replies came before the deadline.
Searching for the Trump Cuts
As I waited for the email replies that would never come, I sought to find out more information for myself. For example on the cuts to COVID grant programs I was able to obtain — though not from the City — a City generated chart showing the dates and amounts of federal grants from federal COVID legislation to the City.
The chart listed the three COVID grants mentioned earlier. They totaled $14,446,775. When Trump canceled them, two were set to expire within three months and the third would expire in 17 months. Trump canceled all three on March 24, 2025. I later learned, from a source I will acknowledge further down, that the longer running grant still had $887,332.37 unspent and the other one had $1,259 left. That’s a total of $888,591.
So, once again, the cancelation of grants that were to soon expire does not seem like a strong factual foundation from which to build a campaign to “restore” Trump cuts. It just seems like a group who frame their campaign around Trump, and restoring cuts he made to Austin, could come up with some stronger examples; or at least more.
Looking for more information, I contacted an old friend Barbara Cilley. Cilley has been involved in Austin politics for several decades. She is very data oriented and once, during the 1990s, published a deep dive newsletter on local politics and government. She also served on a number of task forces, boards and commissions, including the Electric Utility Commission.
She drifted away from Austin politics for a number of years but the activities of recent Councils brought her back into the fray. Lately she has taken to perusing the City budget on advanced AI.
Cilley said the biggest Trump cut is the $105 million in federal funding the City was anticipating receiving to help pay for its commitment to its cap and stitch effort on IH 35. That means paying for infrastructure intended to make it possible to build atop the highway which will be buried underground through downtown Austin as part of TxDOT’s expansion of the highway. (In other words the Council may have counted their caps before they were stitched.)
There were two cuts with more immediate effect. Cilley says FEMA slashed $50 million that was intended for flood mitigation at the South Austin Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant and at Austin Energy’s Sand Hill facility. Prop Q cannot help restore those cuts because Austin Water and Austin Energy are not funded through property taxes.
Cilley continued that while cuts have not been announced yet there will likely be cuts in Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funding and in Home Investment Partnerships.
“Probably the biggest funding cut in housing,” she added by email, “will occur with Section 8 housing. This funding comes thru the Housing Authority and the City has no plans to deal with this cut thru Proposition Q. Section 8 is probably the largest support for people who can not afford Austin’s rent and it could have serious implications for many Austinities.”
Based on her extensive research, Cilley concluded, “The City (of Austin) will suffer serious cuts from Trump, but they won’t be replaced by Prop Q.”
Based on her extensive research, Barbara Cilley concluded, “The City (of Austin) will suffer serious cuts from Trump, but they won’t be replaced by Prop Q.”
Cilley added that perhaps later the Council could use the allocated funds to restore Trump cuts. That, however, would mean taking them away from other uses where they are headed now.
Love Austin So Much Campaign Responds
Just as I was nearing completion of this story I got a late night email from Joe Cascino, the campaign manager for the Love Austin So Much campaign. Cascino apologized for not making the deadline, explaining, “I wanted to provide you with good information from the city.” I immediately appreciated this sentiment, but also couldn’t help but wonder why City officials were providing information to the campaign manager for a campaign to raise City property taxes, but ignoring my questions about that same election.
Cascino provided a link to a memo from Intergovernmental Relations Officer Carrie Rogers about cuts, a link to an article from KUT which had quotes from the Director of Austin Public Health, and – more directly in answer to the questions — a list of “Federal Cuts Restored by the TRE (Tax Rate Election)” i.e. Prop Q.” He also provided information from the City that I used earlier in this story to report how much more was in the three COVID grants cut by Trump.
His list of “Federal Cuts Restored,” however, featured some inaccuracies. Others did not have enough information where I felt comfortable printing them without more research; for example, having answers to the questions I sent to the City Financial and Communications Offices about what Trump cuts has the City suffered, how much, and how is Prop Q replacing them.
As to the inaccuracies, one item reported,“Federal funds would have been used for flood infrastructure at AW’s South Austin Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant and AE’s Sand Hill Energy Center. Funds were eliminated, and approximately $2.5M were obligated before the rescission.” Unless Cascino is privy to some new City policy or state law that I am unaware of, these funds could not be replaced by Prop Q. That’s because, as I have mentioned before, Prop Q is a proposed rise in property taxes and property taxes can not be used to fund the City’s electric or water utilities.
Cascino also noted, “The Outdoor Recreation Legacy Partnership (ORLP) for $4,000,000 was paused on 4/24/25. These federal funds would have been used for the John Trevino Jr. Metro Park. Funds were paused per Executive Order.” When I wrote back to Cascino and pointed out that this would be a one-time use of funds from a permanent tax increase he did some more research and responded, “The parks money will go to parkland maintenance across the city parks department and will therefore impact John Trevino, which was explicitly named as a top PARD priority in the approved budget.”
It’s not clear, however, if this all replaces a Trump cut, but I had to stop asking questions at some point and publish the story.
So, some of Cascino’s answers were lacking and inaccurate, like saying Prop Q will fund things that it can’t. But, at least he worked hard to answer the questions.
That leads to a fundamental question about this situation: why are the Mayor, almost the entire City Council, top City financial executives and the Chief Communications Director leaving a young campaign manager hanging out there as the only person who will answer questions about a proposed $108 million proposed tax increase?
Why are the Mayor, almost the entire City Council, top City financial executives and the Chief Communications Director leaving a young campaign manager hanging out there as the only person who will answer questions about a proposed $108 million proposed tax increase?
What Does This All Mean?
So let’s summarize. A PAC endorsed by nine Council Members is running a campaign based on restoring cuts made by the Trump Administration. But, none of the Council Members or the Mayor is willing to answer questions about what the cuts are and what cuts Prop Q will “restore.”
Meanwhile City staff refuses to answer questions about what cuts Trump has made to Austin’s federal funding and about which of those cuts Prop Q would restore. Based on information we were able to gather from knowledgeable sources not affiliated with City government, it appears that if staff accurately replied to those questions, the answers would contradict claims that the Council and Mayor-backed PAC is making. Plus, staff won’t even provide copies of the final language of the amendments that Council added to the budget to create Prop Q.
To be fair, City staff should not be judged by this one failure to provide information. Nor should it be considered certain that they refused to answer questions because factual answers would conflict with what a PAC backed by the Mayor and most of the Council is claiming on the campaign trail.
Likewise the Mayor and Council Members should not be judged based on whether they replied to the Austin Independent. But, they should have more respect for voters than to try and manipulate them by running a deceptive campaign. They should be willing, and able, to publicly explain what cuts Trump has made that affect Austin’s budget. And they should be able to clearly explain which of those cuts Prop Q will restore.
It’s not acceptable, or just, for City officials to base an entire campaign to raise City taxes on ‘restoring Trump cuts’ while refusing to list the “Trump cuts” that were made or how the proposed tax increase will replace them.
_________________________
(Shortly before press time the Austin Independent discovered that the Love Austin So Much campaign today removed the Trump-Abbott graphic — featured above in a screenshot from earlier this week — from their home page.)
Correction: In our last article we reported that if Prop Q passes that would result in “an overall property tax bill increase of around $300 on the ‘typical homeowner,’” as multiple local media outlets have reported. After further study, including reviewing a statement from Mayor Kirk Watson, a more precise explanation is that the overall property tax increase on the “typical homeowner” would be $469.53 per year. That is comprised of $268.23 a year from the budget put forward by City Manager T.C. Broadnax and $201.30 annually that would be added if Prop Q is approved; so a total of $469.53 per year, as reported in the above article. I apologize for the error.
Folks: If we’re going to keep publishing stories like this we need some more paid subscribers. Local, independent journalism is very poorly funded. That is definitely the case with the Austin Independent. Please consider subscribing and/or donating. It will help us, for example, to expand our readership base and to pay for important public information requests To subscribe or donate, click here. Funds we receive will be used primarily to try to increase our readership base.
To receive notification when the Austin Independent posts stories, to subscribe, or to write to the editor please send us an email under Contact on the home page,or click here.
The Austin Independent, a publication of The Austin Independent, LLC
All Rights Reserved