Proposition I / 02 / City services

Bigger budgets.Where are the results?

A smaller rail plan. Rising bus costs. City contractors missing expectations. Open the record, then see how Proposition I would require performance measures for City offices and contractors—and tie contractor payment to results.

Explore the evidence What Proposition I changes

01 / The rail record

The tax was approved. The rail plan got smaller.

2020 initial rail plan~20 miles26 stations

Current Phase 19.8 miles15 stations

$8.23BFTA’s financing-inclusive Phase 1 capital estimate, in year-of-expenditure dollars.

2033Planned passenger service. ATP selected its civil contractor in February 2026; construction is planned for 2027.

Open the rail project file

The Texas Tribune documented the reduction from an approximately 20-mile, 26-station initial rail plan to the current 9.8-mile, 15-station phase. The first phase does not reach the airport terminal and drops the downtown tunnel.

The FTA profile lists $8.2336 billion, including $1.0853 billion in finance charges. This is a project estimate, not money already spent. It lists a requested $4.0674 billion federal contribution; the funding plan is not an FTA commitment.

The FTA assigned the project an overall Medium-High rating. Its profile projects $83.06 million in annual operating costs in the opening year.

FTA project profile · FY2026 ATP contractor announcement · February 2026

Investigative reporting / Texas Tribune / May 21, 2026

How Austin’s Project Connect went off the rails

Read the reporting on the bigger price tag, smaller footprint, and delivery timeline.

Open the investigation

02 / The operating record

Bus cost per trip: up 20%. Bus ridership: down 8%.

Q1 FY2026 vs. Q1 FY2025. CapMetro’s own quarterly report puts cost and use side by side. Explore both modes.

$13.01Operating cost per passenger trip, up from $10.82 a year earlier.

6.0MQuarterly bus trips, down from 6.5 million a year earlier.

Both measures missed the agency’s quarterly targets: $11.07 per trip and 6.4 million trips.

Q1 FY2026 compared with Q1 FY2025. Operating expense divided by passenger trips; these are costs, not passenger fares. Source: CapMetro’s February 2026 Operations Committee packet.

Open the performance report · packet pages 78–83

Who is responsible for rail and transit spending?

Austin Transit Partnership delivers the light-rail project; CapMetro is a separate regional transit authority. Proposition I’s review scope is defined by City entities included in Austin’s annual comprehensive financial report. These regional transit figures provide service and spending context, rather than extending the amendment’s legal reach to every transit operation.

Read the proposed scope · §18(A)(2)

03 / The fraud and contract record

Paying out is not the same as delivering.

CITY AUDITOR · DECEMBER 2025One investigation: nearly $980,000 in fraudulent transactions.

The City Auditor reported that an Austin Energy employee used fictitious vendors in a scheme involving approximately $980,000. Weak purchasing controls and supervisory approvals allowed it to run for about six years.

The accountability question is concrete: who verifies a vendor, who approves the payment, and who checks that something was actually delivered?

Read the investigation Read KUT’s reporting · Dec. 9, 2025

CITY AUDITOR · JULY 202667 of 151 annual nonprofit contract expectations were missed.

The audit assessed performance across 25 contracts worth about $30 million. Only six met every annual expectation. The 67 missed expectations measure performance requirements, not dollars lost.

Proposition I calls for workload, cost, and outcome measures to evaluate contractors and condition payment on meeting those measures.

Read the final nonprofit contract audit

Research reviewed September 30, 2026. Each comparison is labeled with its reporting period.

Explore how it works

Three different questions

Spending tells one part of the story. The proposal calls for examining what work is done, what it costs, and what results it produces.

Workload

Count the work.

A workload measure describes activity: for example, the number of service requests completed. More activity alone does not establish better results.

Illustrative measure—not reported City data

Source: proposed Article VII §18(A)(1)(b–d) · Full ordinance (PDF)

The proposal, explained

What Proposition I would require

Selection, scope, and follow-through: get the details behind the proposal.

Read the full proposal (PDF)

Would contractors be included?

Yes. The proposal requires developing workload, cost, and outcome measures to evaluate contractors and condition payment on meeting the measures. It also calls for reviewing City staffing and management structure.

How do findings become service improvements?

An independent review provides analysis and recommendations. Improvements depend on implementation, management decisions, resources, and follow-through. Residents can follow whether a recommendation leads to a changed process and a measurable result.

How would comparisons work?

The proposal calls for benchmarking City operations and contracted programs against similar Texas cities and programs. Meaningful comparisons must account for differences in responsibilities and service scope.

Keep exploring