30 Oct District 5 City Council Candidates: Similarities, Differences, Big Ideas

In a race with no incumbents on the ballot, District 5 certainly has its fair share of political experience. Two seasoned politicos have tossed their hats into the ring – Ann Kitchen, a former member of the Texas House of Representatives, and Dan Buda, who spent 6 years working at the Texas State Capitol and even served as State Senator Wendy Davis’ Chief of Staff. Their political experience has penetrated the entire race and illustrates itself particularly well within their questionnaire responses.

Water

This south central district includes Zilker Park, Barton Creek and parts of Lady Bird Lake, so it is not surprising that water has emerged as the central environmental issue of the District 5 City Council race. In their questionnaire responses, Kitchen, Buda, and David Senecal all said that conservation should be the primary tool in securing a safe and reliable water supply for Austin. “If we are to avoid the extreme costs of buying and transporting water from other areas we must do a much better job of protecting and conserving the water supplies we now control,” Kitchen wrote.

However, all three of these candidates also warned that the business model of Austin Water must change in order to keep the utility viable in the face of increased conservation efforts and decreased water sales. “We need to balance the costs associated with AWU, with the costs of ratepayers, to come up with a better long-term pricing model for AWU rates, taking into account the continued need to expand conservation efforts,” Buda said.

In order to achieve this, Kitchen wrote that she would advocate for the measures already proposed by the Austin Water Resource Planning task force, particularly the recommendation that the city encourage the use of private capital to finance decentralized water reuse and conservation infrastructure in order to mitigate ratepayer impacts.

Transportation

Another issue closely related to water that was raised by the District 4 candidates is the proposed construction of SH 45SW, a highway that would connect MoPac with I-35 in south Austin. Buda and Kitchen both came out in strong opposition to the road project, citing its potential threat to the Barton Springs Edwards Aquifer. Both also questioned the road’s potential impact on traffic, saying that they had not received enough information to convince them that it would actually alleviate traffic problems in the region. “I am concerned that the $100 million SH45 costs too much while not addressing South Austin’s transportation problems,” Kitchen wrote.

After dismissing the value of SH 45SW, both Kitchen and Buda then offered their own specific ideas for dealing with Austin’s traffic problems, in a way that they both contested would be more effective than the construction of SH 45SW.

Kitchen even ticked off a list of District 5’s transportation troubles, including congestion chokepoints throughout south Austin, overcrowded and poorly maintained roads, poor East to West links, lack of a south Austin transportation plan, lack of adequate bus service, rapid bus stops at locations such as Westgate that miss the majority of south Austin, and inadequate sidewalk and bus infrastructure. Buda and Senecal also raised several of these transportation issues in their questionnaire responses. To fix some of these problems, Buda proposed a code rewrite that would allow companies like Uber and Lyft to operate legally in the city, as well as expanded bus routes, night service on those bus routes to prevent drinking and driving, and a finalized set of plans for the Lone Star Rail project, which would connect Austin and San Antonio via a passenger rail line.

Major Disagreements

Some of the most significant differences between the District 5 candidates originate from issues related to climate change and Austin Energy. While none of the candidates expressed an outright denial of climate change in their questionnaire responses, opinions on its intensity and causes did run the gamut.

“I am a firm believer that uncontrolled proliferation of fossil fuel usage is not healthy for individuals or the planet,” Senecal wrote. “This is true whether you assign to it increased sickness, decreased quality of life or global warming.”

Similarly, Dave Floyd invoked a noncommittal response to his opinions on climate change, writing that, “I do think that the planet is in a natural warming cycle, but that human activity has exacerbated and accelerated it.” He continued on to say that while it’s difficult to determine the degree to which humans are causing climate change, from a risk management stand point, it seems reasonable to act to minimize its effects as much as possible. Senecal also arrived at a similar conclusion, writing that “it is prudent” to act.

Kitchen and Buda, on the other hand, took much firmer positions. When asked if she accepts the scientific consensus that climate change is happening and is attributable to human activity, Kitchen said, “Yes. Case closed. We need a more immediate and comprehensive response to the threat that climate change poses to the region.”

Kitchen and Buda also expressed a stronger desire than the other candidates for a transition to renewable energy, so long as the city’s affordability goals are also maintained. “I will be a strong advocate for green energy and consumer advocate with regard to utility rates,” Buda wrote.

Senecal, on the other hand, took a much softer approach, writing that he supports the general recommendations of the Austin Generation Resource Planning Task Force, but that Austin Energy’s current renewable goals should be met before city council pushes for new ones.

A qualified response – Fayette and Decker

Once again, when asked for their opinions about Austin’s coal-fired Fayette and gas-fired Decker power plants, the District 5 candidates all initially offered their tentative support. However, most of their answers were soon followed by a resounding, but….

For example, Senecal and Floyd both expressed a general support of retiring Decker and replacing it with 600 MW of west Texas solar, as was recommended by the Austin Generation Resource Planning Task Force, but questioned the feasibility of doing so.

“We all like the green aspect.” Senecal wrote, “but before we shut off the Decker plant we need to validate cost differences, supply reliability and delivery costs, carbon footprint net impacts, gas supplies and costs, and impact on our area economy and future demands.”  He also cautioned against shutting down Austin’s Fayette coal-fired power plant without a proper plan in place to prevent rolling brown-outs or supply issues. However, since Austin is connected to the larger Texas electricity grid, power outages are not a likely result of the retirement of either Decker or Fayette. Not even Austin Energy’s own staff have raised these concerns. Instead, they call attention to the potential financial implications of getting out of fossil fuel generation too fast.

Buda also expressed his support for the retirement of Decker, but like the others, added his own caveat to his response. He wrote that while he does support an overall increase in Austin Energy’s renewable energy portfolio, he believes the 2016 retirement data suggested by the Austin Generation Resource Planning Task Force is a bit ambitious. “We must ensure that any such transition is well planned with a realistic timeline,” Buda wrote.

Kitchen was the only District 5 candidate to give her full-fledged support to Decker’s retirement, writing that, “West Texas solar promises to be the cheapest price in the United States and more than competitive with the older gas plant.”

Big Ideas : A collection of the candidates' most unique plans for Austin

From Dan Buda – If elected, Buda said that he would appoint an environmental justice liaison to work with his staff, and to ensure that city services are being equitably distributed and that codes are being enforced fairly.

From Dan Buda – If elected, Buda said that he would support a resolution calling for an audit of Austin Water.