Today, less than two months after Mike Villarreal's HB 1937 became effective, the Austin City Council will vote on a resolution to act upon the bill's intentions. Agenda Item Number 39, sponsored by Mayor Leffingwell, would order the City Manager to "study and evaluate the means of implementing a program under HB 1937 to finance the installation of energy efficiency improvements and renewable energy resources by property owners in the City of Austin, in a way that has no cost impact on the City government."
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.
(Finally. Though I'm not sure how much good releasing them after Early Voting has ended and when most students are in finals and leaving does... - promoted by Karl-Thomas Musselman)
In April of last year, city Councilman Lee Leffingwell was awarded the Texas chapter of the American Water Works Association's Conservationist of the Year award. The honor was bestowed upon Leffingwell because he recommended in 2006 that Austin's toilets be retrofitted to reduce water waste, which would cut excess water usage by up to 10 percent over the course of 10 years. As a smart, steady council member since 2005, Leffingwell is unafraid to tackle any subject, and has the experience to back him up. Prior to his current term, he was chair of the Austin's Environmental Board. A lifelong Austinite, Leffingwell understands the issues that command the attention of someone in his position - environmental sustainability, improvements to public transportation and mental healthcare reform, to name a few. We're confident that, given another term, Leffingwell can continue to make seemingly simple, smart and structural changes to benefit Austin now and for the future.
Place 3: Randi sun's-so-bright-i'm-sittin'-in-the-Shade
Randi Shade's a relative newcomer to the scene of Austin politics, but we think she deserves the benefit of our doubt. While Shade and incumbent Jennifer Kim put forth similar platform ideologies in regards to traffic, urban planning, the environmment and affordable housing, we think Shade has more intrinsic power to champion positive initiatives for Austin's benefit. She recognizes that many systems in place, such as code enforcements in neighborhoods, are complaint-driven. But instead of complaining about the complaints, Shade wants to open avenues for dialogue between residents and the city. And while Shade supports initiatives for downtown development, she is an Austin loyalist who wants to "keep Austin Austin." In addition, we trust that Shade has the best interests of Austin's environment in mind. She co-founded the Austin Clean Energy Initiative in 2001 and wants to conserve the land around the Edwards aquifer, as well as select parts of East Austin that are in imminent danger of being chewed up by development.
Place 4: Robin "crazy hippy" Cravey
If anyone could be Austin personified, it would be Robin Cravey. Cravey is an eco-pioneer, one of those people who everyone used to think was crazy for riding around town on a scooter, using cloth diapers and shirking air conditioning, but now represents what should have long been the status quo. Even though Cravey has been dedicated to reducing his environmental impact for decades, he has no reservations on making an impact of a different kind on Austin. A longtime public servant, Cravey, a practicing attorney, has worked at city hall since the 1990s and been a member of the Austin Planning Commission. This is where Cravey really secures our vote: With Austin developing at a Los Angeles-esque clip, we need a voice on the city council to speak up against flagrant development. Instead, we believe Cravey will fight to keep Austin real by protecting local treasures such as Barton Springs, and he says that one of his main priorities is to fill in the gaps on the Austin hike-and-bike trail. We're all for his promise to make the city smaller and greener with sustainable development planning, affordable housing closer to the center of town and better options for public and bicycle transit to reduce our dependence on cars.
(Jennifer Kim has been (dual) endorsed by Burnt Orange Report. - promoted by Karl-Thomas Musselman)
There has been much to-do in the last few days about a supposed anonymous automated call from my campaign, and my opponent is attempting to use this to distract from the fact that she is taking unpopular stands that will have a direct effect on city services and your taxes.
First, let me confirm that my campaign did do an automated call to voters about Randi Shade's promise to police and firefighters for increased staffing while seeking their endorsement. This call went to voter who received a mail piece about this same issue and used the same language in the mail piece. I do not believe we were being deceptive in any way.
More importantly, my opponent's objections to the call and resorting to calling me a liar show how concerned her campaign is that we are pointing this issue out.
On January 24, the editorial board of the Austin American Statesman reported on the police and firefighters associations making their City Council endorsement. They said," It was highly disappointing that Cid Galindo and Randi Shade, two of the candidates endorsed this week, promised - in writing - to increase public safety staffing without knowing the rest of the city's needs or financial limits."
I agree with these sentiments. It is irresponsible to make such promises without knowing the financial condition of our city.
Our City budget is now facing at least a $20 million deficit. At the same time, we have the highest paid police and firefighters in the state. I think we need to ensure we are taking care of all the city staff, providing essential services, and balancing the budget before making more promises.
I hope I can count on your support so I can continue to stand up for our community values which start with our budget.
Kim denies having anything to do with the anonymous calls.
"We only did one call, which had to do with her commitment to raise the budget for public safety-without knowing the details of the budget-when she was endorsed by the public safety union," Jennifer Kim said. "But if there's anything else, then that may be uncoordinated with my campaign."
News 8 has updated their story to reflect the campaign's admission to placing the anonymous calls.
The Kim campaign said it was political speech protected by the first amendment, and not against the election code. However, it said it will check state law to see if it was an "inadvertent technical violation."
The Shade campaign said the information in the call is false and that State law states such anonymous, automated calls are illegal.
(Anyone else have reports from the campaigns over the weekend? Apparently today was also Randi Shade's birthday. - promoted by Karl-Thomas Musselman)
Today is a big day for the Randi Shade campaign, as the candidate for Austin City Council travels across our city meeting voters at a series of neighborhood block parties in order to genuinely listen to their concerns. This morning's event was hosted by my friends Ian and Amy at their home. There was great turnout - folks came from across Austin to get to meet Randi, and the event was attended by a lot of Ian and Amy's neighbors with real concerns about what's going on in our city.
More pictures and how Randi addressed their concerns below.
The April fundraising reports are out in the Austin City Council races. The Statesman has the story.
In Place 1, Jason Meeker raised only $2,960 in April. The incumbent Lee Leffingwell raised $23,690 in April bringing his total since November to an impressive $192,065.
In Place 3, Jennifer Kim outraised Randi Shade by $10,250 last month but still trails to Shade in overall fundraising $184,425 to $179,475. The only council candidate to have raised more than Kim and Shade is Leffingwell. Ken Weiss, another contender for Place 3, raised $215 in April.
In Place 4, Cid Galindo led with $50,030 raised last month. Laura Morrison raised $21,491 and Robin Cravey raised $12,974.
Galindo has had a pretty singificant financial advantage in Place 4.
Galindo has also spent the most money since fundraising began in November — $158,961 — compared with Morrison's $114,214 and Cravey's $48,501. Galindo has loaned himself $60,000; Morrison has loaned herself $40,000.
The following mail paid for by the Jennifer Kim campaign hit in the last day or two.
At issue is Randi Shade's campaign mangager/advisor Mark Nathan. Now, many BOR readers may know him from successfully managing a number of the current council's campaigns, and it is that point which the mail piece refers to. Fair enough.
But being a political blog, we wouldn't be doing our job if we didn't point the irony (or hypocrisy, take your pick) in this story- the key point being that the very same "developer lobbyist" that Jennifer Kim attacks in this mailer... was originally sought out by Jennifer Kim to run her campaign.
And the following were provided by Nathan himself as background for this. There are more but I think this illustrates the point. According to Nathan, Kim asked him to work on her 2005 campaign as well (he declined) and back in 2002, Nathan quote "personally hired her to work directly for me on the 2002 Tony Sanchez campaign, which she did for five months".
------ Forwarded Message
From: Jennifer Kim < jennifer.kim@... >
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2007 17:51:35 -0500
To: Mark Nathan < mark@... >
Subject: RE: Hi Jennifer...
Hi there, Mark. Yes, thanks for calling. I'm in DC right now and would be
able to meet Friday if you are available.
Jennifer
______________________________
From: Mark Nathan [mailto:mark@...]
Sent: Tue 6/5/2007 3:51 PM
To: Jennifer Kim; Jennifer Kim
Subject: Hi Jennifer...
Thanks for the call about your campaign. I left a voicemail on your cell
last week, thought I would email to see if we can find a time to talk. I
hope this finds you well!
Early I posted about apparent anonymous robocalls in the Austin City Council Place 3 race between Jennifer Kim and Randi Shade (oh, and Ken Weiss).
Well, it appears they may not so anonymous after all and indeed are from the Jennifer Kim campaign.
The number used to call has been previously identified as one used for Kim autocalls.
The issue now- is "Lisa" enough of a disclaimer for the Kim campaign to not be breaking the law? (Ironic given yesterday's 'ethics' hullabaloo?) Jeff Crosby points this out in the comments on the prior post.
It's against state law (Texas PUC Regulations). Robo calls that fail to properly identify the caller within the first 30 seconds of the call are illegal.
And for those not convinced this is from the Kim campaign, two scans of the latest attack mail from her campaign are below the fold. The messaging is the same.
Jennifer Kim's campaign manager Elliot McFadden has filed an ethics complaint against Randi Shade.
The ethics complaint alleges Shade's campaign failed to report the bundling of money from development firms with ties to the Domain and the Wal-Mart Supercenter at Northcross Mall.
McFadden, who filed the complaint with the City Ethics Review Commission, released this statement by press release:
“It appears from her campaign finance reports that Randi Shade has had thousands of dollars in donations bundled from certain development firms and failed to report the bundling as required by law,” McFadden stated.
City election code requires individuals that raise $100 or more from 5 people or more on behalf of a candidate be listed as a bundler. Randi Shade received contributions from 11 out of 13 principals at Endeavor Real Estate Group, 17 out of 28 attorneys at Ambrust & Brown, and all 4 partners at Reagan Advertising totaling $16,500 in bundled money.
“This begs the question of what Shade is hiding by not reporting this information.,” McFadden continued. “We have firms involved in unpopular projects, which Jennifer Kim has opposed, like tax giveaways for corporate retail, the Wal-Mart at Northcross, and billboards on scenic roadways, and Randi Shade appears to be hiding her direct association with these firms.”
Endeavor is the developer of The Domain which is expected to receive over $65 million in tax subsidies from the City and Ambrust & Brown is the law firm representing Lincoln Properties in their development of Wal-Mart at Northcross Mall as well as representing Endeavor. Reagan Advertising owns a majority of the billboards in the Austin market and had been promoting a proposal that would have put billboards on some of Austin’s designated scenic roadways . . .
The ony poll taken in this race showed Shade with a lead of 1.5%, well within the margin of error. Burnt Orange Report has endorsed both Jennifer Kim and Randi Shade.
I know there are readers who understand election law much better than I do: what do you all think about the validity of the complaint?
Today is a big day for the 
