Austin City Council Incumbents Set Themselves Up for Re-Election

by: Karl-Thomas Musselman

Wed Nov 24, 2010 at 01:49 PM CST

Places 1, 3, and 4 are on next May's ballot and incumbents Chris Riley, Randi Shade, and Laura Morrison have all announced they are running for re-election with the following treasurers and advisors.

Place 1: Chris Riley

Democratic and neighborhood activist Mike Clark-Madison will serve as treasurer of Riley's re-election campaign.  Longtime Austin political consultant David Butts will help lead the campaign, with support from fundraising consultant Susan Harry, who also worked for Riley's 2009 campaign. More information is available at Riley's re-election campaign website: www.ChrisforAustin.com.

Announced challengers include former Mayoral candidate Josiah Ingalls who received less than 1% of the vote in the 2009 contest against Lee Leffingwell. Riley won Leffingwell's unexpired term that year and as a result is back on the ballot aiming for a full term.

The only other rumors in the race involve Austinites for Action's Dominic Chavez who was one of a handful of people opposing this November's Proposition 1 Mobility Bond campaign. Chavez is also considering running against Laura Morrison in Place 4 but has yet to make a decision on which seat he'd prefer to run in, if either. The only thing that's different about the two seats is the margin Chavez would lose by and how much money he'd have to waste in the process.

Place 3: Randi Shade

Of the three races, this is the "hottest" but that's still not saying much. Burnt Orange Report's Katherine Haenschen, who's coming off leading the 2010 Travis County Democratic Party coordinated campaign and managed Riley's 2009 successful campaign, will be managing Shade's race.  Susan Harry will serve as Shade's fundraiser. Well known consultants Mike Blizzard and Mark Littlefield will act in advisory roles.

Shade is up for her first re-election bid after defeating incumbent Jennifer Kim with 64% of the vote in 2008 which was nearly equal to then Councilmember Lee Leffingwell's margin against Jason Meeker & Friends. Shade definitely has a base from which to start but this race is already being defined as a referendum on the incumbent, much like her original race three years ago. Shade has not been one of the more visible councilmembers due in part to her governing style as well as the birth of her second child Emme just two months after taking a seat on the council dias- something Shade's campaign acknowledged in their first email to supporters.

Rumors of challengers started back in October with much of the attention being focused on former Democratic State Representative Ann Kitchen who was being urged to challenge Shade focusing on the debate over Water Treatment Plant #4. WTP4 has split the local environmental community and the council with a series of 4-3 votes pushing the project forward. Kitchen has since withdrawn her name according to the Austin Chronicle leaving environmental activist Robin Rather's name in the mix.  

Rather would be a credible candidate and would occupy a lot of space to Randi's left flank which is somewhat exposed with quiet grumblings among some union players and some members of the GLBT community who don't see Shade as a fierce advocate on their behalf. But the talk about Shade keeps coming back to the Water Treatment Plant which isn't a broad enough or damaging single issue for a challenger to run on. Based on polling I've seen over the last two years, the public is pleased with the city council at above average levels and messaging around WTP4 actually works in Shade's favor. As much as people are pro-conservation in this town, when push comes to shove, they aren't willing to risk their water supply to two half century old water treatment plants (already down from three) as the city doubles in population yet again by ~2030.

I hate to say this 6 months out from the election, but the clock is ticking. If the forces behind Kitchen and now Rather don't formalize an announcement by the second week of December they will be severely weakened. That means they would have to be canvassing key voters and city political players right now to get their ducks in a row in time; every day that goes by in this 'silent campaign' period is one day closer to victory for incumbents. Even for the "buzziest" of the 3 seats, there has been remarkably little chatter, leaving Shade an opportunity to solidify some of her more 'squishy' support and pull in a lot of cash.

Place 4: Laura Morrison

Consultant David Butts will be chief consultant to Laura Morrison's re-election bid with Jim Wick filling in a campaign manager. Wick was largely responsible for Karen Sage's upset victory over Mindy Montford in the 2008 judicial primaries and recently led Rep. Valinda Bolton's field campaign. Dean Rindy will be the media consultant with Jeff Smith as pollster and former Leffingwell field hand Shawn Badgley doing field.

Morrison has evolved and grown into her position on the dais- and in a good way from most anyone you talk to. She's disarmed many potential opponents and does not have any announced challenged other than the same rumors of Dominic Chavez (see my notes under the Place 1 area). If you asked folks 3 years ago if Shade or Morrison would have a tougher re-election the vast majority would have said Morrison, myself included. That appears to be wrong. Morrison has shored up her (non-neighborhood) left flank since being elected and doesn't face any particular issues with the environmental community (she voted with Riley opposite of Shade on WTP4). That doesn't leave a lot of space for a challenger, at least among the traditional city electorate and power bases.

I expect that all three council members will end up being re-elected, continuing a long period of stability on the city council. It's quite possible that we'll have a 5 year stretch of the Leffingwell/Martinez/Cole/Shade/Morrison/Spelman/Riley council- at least until Austin votes on an expected Single-Member District plan in 2012 which could alter the makeup of the dias considerably. And both of those things, and in that order, might be what Austin needs as it finalizes a number of major long range planning processes in the next couple of years.  

Austin City Council Passes Landmark Energy Plan

by: Katherine Haenschen

Fri Apr 23, 2010 at 09:24 AM CDT

The Statesman has a comment from Mayor Leffingwell on this great step forward for Austin:

"I believe that Austin has in the past shown leadership on environmental initiatives," Mayor Lee Leffingwell said. "And I think that we should keep ourselves in the forefront, recognizing that global climate change is, in my opinion, the environmental challenge of our time. This is a global problem, but the sum of local policy is global policy."

This plan demonstrates that our city government is thinking both short- and long-term in its approach to the major challenges facing Austin. The economic downturn has folks watching every penny, so the increase in cost is certainly an issue. Council is on top of this, however -- the plan won't go into effect until specific cost-containment goals are adopted before year-end. It's also worth noting that potential increases in energy costs from renewables -- estimates run as high as a 20% increase -- don't factor in likely long-term increases in costs of natural gas and oil. (Or, might I add, the cost of cleaning up after our dirty sources of energy.)

Our entire planet needs to address climate change, declining fossil fuel stores, and environmental needs now, to prevent greater cost later on. We can invest today in a cleaner future, or pay dearly when our current sources of energy run out. Austin's green energy plan is a great way to accomplish all of these goals.

Burnt Orange Report also received a statement from the Sierra Club praising the landmark plan:

"While the resolution passed by Austin City Council isn't perfect, it sets up a process with the public to examine additional issues -- like how Austin can legally, economically and technically get out of our dependence on the Fayette Coal Plant and how we can create a local power plant through solar on roofs. The Sierra Club and its members will continue to be constructively involved in this discussion on affordable, clean, reliable energy." -- Cyrus Reed, Conservation Director, Lone Star Chapter, Sierra Club

Until we have enough alternate sources of energy, many experts think that the City of Austin can't afford to sell off the polluting coal plant -- otherwise at peak energy times (like 5:30 p.m. when folks return from work and turn on their air conditioners) -- we might end up in the dark. Currently, only 12% of our energy comes from renewables. This move to 35% over 10 years is ambitious and achievable, and will give Austin much more room to make the most sustainable energy decisions in the future.

So kudos to our City Council for giving Austin one of the best Earth Day presents possible: a cleaner, greener energy future.  

LegalZoom or LegalDoom?

by: Julio Gonzalez Altamirano

Sun Feb 14, 2010 at 07:12 PM CST

Here are the deal details.  The City pays out $20,000 for ten years for a nominal total of $200,000.  The state's recruitment- and talent poaching-focused Texas Enterprise Fund would provide an additional $1,000,000.  Austin's population is only about 3% of the state's population, though it's likely that we produce more revenue per capita to state coffers than the average community, so let's say 7% of the state's money comes from Austinites.  That's a total of $270,000 nominal going to the folks at LegalZoom.

In exchange for Austin's $270k, LegalZoom agrees to provide jobs, make real estate improvements to its space, and use minority and women sub-contractors in the improvements.  At the onset, LegalZoom agrees to bring in 50 jobs, augmenting the number to a total of 600 jobs by 2016.  To put these numbers in context, Austin's proposed budget for FY 2010 is $2.75 billion.  Austin has about half a million working age adults (over 18 under 65).  So, either way, this deal is neither a substantial public expense nor a significant contributor to employment.  The City's analysts estimate a net benefit to the City's revenues of $563,000, and LegalZoom indicates that about 540 of the 600 jobs will be local new hires.

Is this a good deal?

In the chart below, I calculate the expected nominal dollar benefits to City revenues under different flight probabilities by LegalZoom if no incentive package is offered.  While the media coverage seems to convey a sense of 100% flight probability if the incentives are nixed, that is unlikely to be the case.

The return on revenues for the City are decent in the event that LegalZoom is likely to skip Austin without incentives, but if that is not the case than this investment looks less compelling as a revenue generator.  This is especially the case if there is a good chance of LegalZoom relocating regardless of incentives, and particularly so because Austin has many ways of generating revenue through enforcement of fines, efficiency initiatives, or just plain old increases of fees and taxes.  From this analysis it does not appear that the revenue generation is a compelling factor in this deal.

The job creation however, does seem much more compelling.  While LegalZoom indicated their net total job creation in the public hearing process, I could not find an estimate of the expected duration of those jobs in years.  This is needed to calculate the subsidy cost per job year.  Let's assume that each job will last an average of 5 years.  Thus, even if there is only a 5% chance of flight, the expected jobs created by the deal would be 27 for a total of 135 job years.  Even under that conservative scenario, Austin public monies would be buying  a job year for $2,000.  Simply put, even if LegalZoom was very likely to show up without the incentives, buying the certainty of the jobs is pretty cheap and the most compelling piece of the deal.

As a one shot deal the LegalZoom job creation commitment makes the incentives pretty compelling for an Austin taxpayer, but as a long-term strategy, there are some potentially troubling issues that should be addressed.

For starters, it's unclear why exactly LegalZoom is seeking these incentives or why the Austin policymakers think this might be a sector worth subsidizing.  As Wells Dunbar implies, LegalZoom's proposal might be opportunistic wrangling, as opposed to a make-or-break incentive mix.  With the Hanger Orthopedic incentives, it was clearly an investment in creating a cluster around one of our desired growth areas (medical) where Austin is not yet a dominant leader.  Dunbar goes on to hypothesize that we are probably offering incentives because some other town is also in the mix, invoking a collective-action dilemma.  Further, the focus on funding relocation probably seems random and unfair to existing Austin companies that might believe they could transform local subsidies into additional job years more efficiently than relocating firms.

To remedy these issues the Council could look into creating an even more structured incentives process that focuses exclusively on key strategic areas like medical technology and life sciences and that uses a market-based bidding mechanism to reward efficient job year creation regardless of the geographic origins of the company.

Originally posted at Keep Austin Wonky.

Energy Generation Plan Presented to Austin City Council

by: citizen.sarah

Thu Feb 04, 2010 at 06:12 PM CST

The energy plan that Duncan (who will be retiring soon and we wish him the very best) presented  sets Austin on a path to reduce our carbon emissions 20% below 2005 levels by 2020 and get a total of 35% of our energy from renewable resources. It will meet council's renewable energy goals, move Austin Energy towards becoming the leading utility in the nation in terms of clean energy and global warming solutions, and re-affirm the city's commitment to the Climate Protection Plan, which has the laudable goal to establish a cap and reduction plan for the utility's carbon dioxide emissions.  It is a flexible, living document that will allow council to evolve and adapt as conditions change. AND it will reduce the capacity factor of our Fayette Coal Plant by 60% and gets the ball rolling on figuring out the best way to shut it down(which you know makes me happy). Sounds like a pretty sweet deal, doesn't it?

As we've come to expect over the years from our award winning utility, Austin Energy is taking an especially responsible and forward-thinking role with this new plan.  I've formed this opinion for a few reasons:

1. They're adopting aggressive renewable energy and efficiency goals as part of a larger, smart business plan.  Austin doesn't need a new generation plan because we're going to be strapped for energy by 2020; Austin Energy could rest on their laurels and do nothing for the next ten years and we'd be fine buying up excess energy on the open market as its power purchase agreements expire and gas plants age.  But if they did that, by the time 2020 rolled around Austin would be way behind the technological curve and very likely be stuck with higher rates as a result.  Austin Energy has picked up on the national trend that the traditional fuels we rely upon, such as coal, are quickly becoming financial liabilities even as solar and wind are becoming more and more cost effective.  This plan will allow the utility to reposition itself  for 2020 going forward so that in ten years we will have made the preparations necessary to take full advantage of the coming clean tech boom rather than be left scrambling and dependent on outdated energy sources.
2. Austin Energy and the task force that helped formulate this plan were very careful to balance considerations of reliability, affordability, and clean (in terms of the environment and human health).  The city has the responsibility to make sure that everyone who lives here can afford their utility bills.  It doesn't do any good to make the switch to a new clean economy if we do so on the backs of those that can least afford it.  But that couldn't be farther from the case with this plan; this isn't green for some, this is green for all.  Compared to other options, this plan will minimize the impact for those least able to pay their electricity bill, supports in-house economic development and the hiring of local contractors, and ensures that everyone will have a chance to play a role in moving our city and economy forward.  There's been a lot of focus and attention on the utility's estimate that the plan will raise rates in 2020 by approximately 22% or $21 a month, but what's missing from that discussion is that even if Austin Energy doesn't do anything between now and 2020 rates will go up by 15% or about $14 a month.  So do the math -- for an extra $7 a month in ten years, we can build up a clean local economy that minimizes impacts on low-income consumers and creates avenues to new employment opportunities, improves public health, AND puts Austin in a prime position to start lowering rates by taking advantage of cheap renewable energy. OR we can save families $7 a month compared to today on their utility bills but lose out on new jobs and leave every citizen in the city of Austin at the mercy of high fossil fuel costs and coming federal regulations on greenhouse gas emissions.  Austin Energy is not only looking at what is most affordable now, but what is most affordable in the long term. Coal may be cheap and reliable energy now, but depending on it in the long term will get us into trouble in terms of cheap and affordable in 2020.
3. Austin Energy is not only reaching for the low fruit of emissions reductions and energy efficiency, they're building high-tech ladders to get at the really juicy stuff at the top of the tree. Let me explain. There are a number of ways Austin Energy could go about reducing emissions.  The easiest of these would be to buy renewable energy credits, or RECs. RECs and offsets are in essence a mechanism for utilities, businesses, and governmental bodies to pay someone else to clean up and still get the credit for it.  They're a good and have a positive influence on society at large because they do encourage clean energy investment and development, but not necessarily in a nearby community (in fact almost certainly not).  It might be easier in the short run to pay someone else to be clean up, but then we miss out on all the delicious creamy gravy that comes along with renewable energy development.  If you buy RECs you don't get new jobs and businesses in your community.  If you buy RECs your own people are still breathing the same amount of pollution.  But Austin Energy is taking the initiative to really get at the heart of the problem by cutting the amount of pollution coming out of the smokestacks we own.  For that, they should be applauded.

Original post can be found at Texas Vox.

Austin Solar Panel Financing up for First Vote (Updated)

by: Michael Hurta

Thu Oct 22, 2009 at 08:59 AM CDT

In other words, the the council can take the first step towards a plan that would allow solar panels added to homeowners' houses through property tax based loans.  Council Members Randi Shade and Mike Martinez also co-sponsor the legislation, and hopefully the rest of the council will join in support.  If passed, though, the council will still need to vote on the final implementation, which would probably occur in January.  Regardless, the mayor sounds excited about the idea:

"If successful, it will help make solar energy accessible to many more local residents, help them save money on their home energy bills almost immediately, and continue to build on Austin's growing reputation as a national leader on renewable energy initiatives," Leffingwell said.

Leffingwell said the program could potentially allow the installation of solar panels and energy efficiency upgrades with no up-front cost. The loan would also be tied to the home and would convey when it is sold, the statement said.

Of course, the plan still has its kinks, too.  I imagine the City Manager, the Mayor, and their staffs will be able to work them out.

Austin Energy General Manager Roger Duncan is an advocate of solar power but worries that if too many people install solar panels too quickly, the city could have trouble maintaining its grid unless it comes up with a new business model for the utility.

The city government has been promoting solar mainly by offering to pay part of homeowners' installation costs. That subsidy money comes from fees collected from all electric-utility customers.

But the subsidy, or rebate, has proven so popular that the city has had trouble keeping up with demand - $3.3 million of the $4 million the city budgeted for this fiscal year was already committed by Oct. 1, the start of the fiscal year.

Thankfully, a loan program like this, more useful to consumers than simple subsides, will can also save the city some money.  Unlike those subsidies, the long-term budgeting implications would barely be effective under a solar panel loan program.  Worst case scenario: I'd imagine the city could place a cap on the amount of loans it gives out per year.  We might need such a restriction, because Austinites are certainly the type to jump on an opportunity like this.

At the current pace, Austin can set itself up to be the first Texas city with such a plan, which may serve as the impetus other cities need to follow through.  Rep. Villarreal follows the issue on his blog, and he informs us, "The City of San Antonio and other stakeholders around town have been working to figure out how to implement the program in our community."

Perhaps Austin will show the way.

Update: The Austin City Council passed the resolution on a 7-0 vote.

Tonight: Inauguration Celebration at Threadgills

by: Ian

Mon Jun 22, 2009 at 01:52 PM CDT

Tonight, you're invited to our inauguration celebration at Threadgills. We'll have local live music featuring W.C. Clark, so don't miss this exciting event!

Inauguration Celebration
Tonight, June 22
7:30 - 9:30 p.m.
Threadgills World Headquarters
301 West Riverside Drive
Austin, TX 78704
RSVP on Facebook

Hosted by:
* Mayor Lee Leffingwell
* Council Member Chris Riley, Place 1
* Council Member Mike Martinez, Place 2
* Council Member Bill Spelman, Place 5
* Council Member Sheryl Cole, Place 6

Unplugged at the Grove Shut Down Due to Noise Complaint

by: Phillip Martin, Progress Texas

Fri Jun 12, 2009 at 10:39 AM CDT

The first full day I was back in Austin a couple weeks ago, I went to Unplugged at the Grove. For those who don't live in Austin, Unplugged at the Grove is a concert series hosted at Shady Grove, a cool Austin restaurant on Barton Springs road in South Austin. They have local artists play for ninety minutes to two hours in a small setting; you can eat food, drink beer, and see free live music from some of Austin's best artists.

That is, until Captain No Fun calls the cops on you, which apparently happened yesterday.

Apparently, the opening act went beyond the 75 decibel limit (remember -- the 75 decibel limit is somewhat similar to chamber music being played in a small auditorium). Neighbor No-Fun threatened to do the same the following week.

From Austin 360:

Thursday’s opening act Sahara Smith was in the middle of her set when Austin Police showed up with a decibel meter and ordered the show stopped. Headliner Jimmy LaFave never played in front of a crowd estimated at 600. “Unplugged” booker Marsha Milam said the complaint came from a neighbor who told Shady Grove management that he’d call the cops next week, too.

“We’re gonna be back with live music next Thursday and the Thursday after that,” vowed Young. “I’ll pay the bands even if they only play five minutes. We’re not gonna give up the fight.”

I think you all know where I stand on this -- the music ends before 9:30pm, its on a loud, loud street in Austin anyway, and considering that my best friend lives a block off of Burnt Road in Central Austin where they have been bulldozing and building new apartments for several months, the idea that Unplugged at the Grove is too noisy is laughable.

Here are competing sides from the comments at Austin 360.

By stex5150

June 11, 2009 9:19 PM | Link to this

It is carpetbaggers like this that need to just pack up and go back to wherever they came from. They have no idea what Austin is all about or what made the company the carpetbagger works for want to locate in Austin. If you are stupid enough to buy a house or condo without researching the area for noise, traffic or crime then you really are not the genius you think you are. The Austin music scene was here long before 75% or more of these carpetbaggers got here but they all want to complain about the noise in their overpriced condos that were built right in the middle of the “Live music capital of Texas”. Think before you buy or go back to wherever you came from, preferrably sooner than later.

By YeahIsaidIt

June 11, 2009 9:23 PM | Link to this

They shoulda arrested the whole lot of them! Don’t want to hear no stank’n music in this overpriced town. Used to have a good neighborhood till all the weird crowd showed up and brought their drugs and tree huggers with them. And not to mention the bike losers. We don’t need know Stevie Ray statue…we need a statue of W…he saved America. Hail the New World Order and down with dull and awful live music. Anyone know the guy that called the cops? He needs a medal! Yeah I said it!

The noise ordinance thing -- pushed by neighborhood associations and Austin City Councilwoman Laura Morrison -- is complete nonsense. When I go camping at state parks (which I also did when I was back in Texas), then quiet hours don't start until 10pm. Before then (and normally after), you'll have lots of families running around, pick-up trucks playing country music -- and in the middle of nowhere.

And everyone is fine with it. And everyone has a good time.

But in the middle of a city, where there have been restaurants for decades, noise exceeding chamber music levels at a small auditorium is considered unruly at 8pm? Are you serious? Did someone confuse Barton Springs road with Georgetown's Sun City or something?

Whoever wants to run against Laura Morrison next election cycle, I'll support you.

Mayor Leffingwell -- let's see what we can do about this.

Update:

Just got an interesting e-mail: the homes across the street from Barton Springs have been around a long time, and those neighbors are (A) used to noise, and (B) the traffic on Barton Springs is loud, too.

The only new living areas there are those condominiums they put up where the trailer parks used to be -- those parks where, ironically, Jimmy LaFave -- who was headlining last night -- used to live for a while. Which means, more than likely, the complaint came from someone that just moved into the neighborhood willingly. 

Either that, or Laura Morrison is just traveling the city, telling kids to get off of her lawn.

Election Night Party!

by: Bill Spelman

Wed May 06, 2009 at 11:01 AM CDT

Now it's time to celebrate! You're invited to our election night party at Joe's Bar & Grill. We'll have local live music featuring Brent Adair, so I hope you can celebrate with us this Saturday evening.

Election Night Party
Free Appetizers
Live Music Featuring Brent Adair
Saturday, May 9th
7:00 - 9:00 p.m.
Joe's Bar & Grill
506 West Avenue
Austin, TX 78703
(next door to Frank & Angie's Pizza)
RSVP on Facebook

Join Us Tomorrow for our Town Hall on Affordability

by: Bill Spelman

Fri May 01, 2009 at 10:25 AM CDT

Friends,

Please join us tomorrow morning for a community town hall meeting to discuss affordability, the social safety net and how that affects the long-term sustainability of our community.

Austin faces some tough challenges ahead, but by working together, we can leverage our city resources to get the most bang for our taxpayer buck. If you can't make the event, then please share your ideas online.

Thanks for your support. I look forward to seeing you tomorrow morning.

Best regards,

Projecting Austin 2009 City Turnout: 50,000 About Right

by: Karl-Thomas Musselman

Wed Apr 29, 2009 at 02:04 AM CDT

First off, a note that overall, turnout is higher in raw numbers and slightly higher in percentage turnout than past years. Then again, this is a Mayoral election year and most recent years' turnout has been low even in the face of contested council elections. The following chart is from the Travis County Elections Division which reports the daily turnout countywide on the 1st day only for all elections, inclusive of those in Austin and smaller jurisdictions.

Yes, even with Monday's rain, we were able to shock the electorate by .04 percentage points higher raw participation! **ahem, cough**

So, as in past elections, I'm running my own models based upon the 2006 (Mayoral) and 2008 (Council) elections for Austin. Each day of data refines the data and rainy days like Monday can suppress the total estimated turnout. These models adjust for average excess of votes included in the daily tallies from the county that don't end up being City of Austin voters (which is measurable and reasonably predictable in past years).

Expected Total Early Vote for City of Austin by Latest Model Run (Tuesday)

Now, this is just the Early Vote estimate, but the share of the EV to Election Day vote has been trending predictably as well.

The easy math is to just go with a 50/50 split but I'll be conservative and use the 48/52 early to e-day split, and produce the following projected TOTAL votes by model as of Tuesday's data.

I expect these numbers to lift some more in coming days.