01 Dec District 6 Runoff Summary

When it comes to the District 6 runoff race, it’s best just to let the candidates speak for themselves.

When asked what else Austin Water should be doing to ensure the city has a reliable water supply, Don Zimmerman said this… “Austin’s incredible incompetent government bureaucrats should not be rewarded with even more power for their failures.” When asked about the city’s watershed protection efforts, energy efficiency goals, and drought reduction plans, Zimmerman said the exact same thing.

In fact, in response to almost every question asked on the Austin EcoNetwork questionnaire (the only environmental survey to which he responded), Zimmerman shot back with a resounding no. He is against the recommendations of the Water Resource Planning Task Force, public purchases of watershed protection lands, energy efficiency targets, zero waste goals, the city’s plastic bag ban, and public investment in the city’s urban tree cover.

On each of these topics, Zimmerman’s opponent, Jimmy Flannigan, gives nearly the exact opposite answer. There is no doubt about it – the differences between these two candidates are stark.

Climate Change

The most significant difference between Zimmerman and Flannigan is their stance on climate change. When asked about his “strategy for addressing impending climate-related disasters, such as drought, extreme storm events, wildfires, and extreme heat,” Zimmerman shot back at the question itself, writing that it’s, “typical of the idiotic statement of extremists who promote a political agenda with junk science.” He continued on to attack the very idea that governments could play a role in combating climate change, saying that, “God’s natural power over the universe is immeasurably greater than the power of corrupt governments and industries combined.” To add insult to injury, he then questioned the very existence of climate change, writing that, “global warming has been debunked,” and claiming that because of that, activists now use the phrase climate change to promote their political agenda. Almost unbelievably, he found a way to take it one step further, saying that, “now that it’s well known the climate has dramatically changed for millions of years prior to mankind – or the Republican Party – kooks now resort to ‘climate justice’”.

Jimmy Flannigan doesn’t say anything like this. When asked if he accepts the scientific consensus of climate change, Flannigan responded with a resounding, “YES.” Invoking his typical coalition-building approach, he added that because of the immediate effects of pollution from fossil fuels, “we don’t need a climate change focus to know that coal and natural gas harm the environment.”

This is a really important difference between Flannigan and Zimmerman that deserves extra reflection. Climate change is at the center of the City of Austin’s environmental policy. Everything that it does, every decision that it makes, is because of climate change. From setting aggressive renewable energy targets for Austin Energy to making longterm plans for acquiring an adequate water supply, city council is thinking about climate change, because without it, much of its hard work and effort is unnecessary. Without climate change, there is no reason to predict a future that is so drought-ridden that innovative and aggressive water acquisition and conservation policies are even necessary. Considering Zimmerman’s position on climate change, it is no wonder that he is so vehemently against the vast majority of the city’s policies.

An approach to governance

At the core of Zimmerman’s campaign are his conservative, limited government principles and rebellious attitude. He has been a delegate or alternate to every state GOP Convention since 1996, ran as a Republican for State Representative and County Tax Assessor-Collector, and was elected to the State Republican Executive Committee in 2010. He also is the founder of the Texas Taxpayers Union, a local organization that has fought against government spending initiatives, including affordable housing and Austin ISD bonds.

Flannigan, while presenting himself as a moderate, has been endorsed by several democratic organizations (including the Austin Environmental Democrats). This innate difference in their political ideologies has carried over into every aspect of the campaign. Zimmerman has stylized himself as a truly unique candidate (a Republican and tax-payer advocate in a liberal city), who is willing to fight back against what he perceives as the overreach of Austin city government.

Flannigan, on the other hand, has focused his campaign around coalition building and his ability to maintain and utilize relationships he has with a broad base of individuals across the city. In essence, he is a Democrat who knows how to speak to the Republicans in his district.

In the KUT Ballot Boxing Forum, Flannigan even went so far as to call this the, “entire premise” of his campaign. Drawing on his years of experience working on issues at city hall  as a member of the Austin Chamber of Commerce Transportation committee, Flannigan said that that he has developed a plethora of positive working relationships with people throughout the city. “Those relationships mean that when it comes time for city council to vote, District 6 is not going to be ignored,” Flannigan said. “We’re not just going to be a protest vote.”

This could easily be perceived as a dig at Zimmerman, who when asked at the KUT Ballot Boxing Forum about his ability to work well with others, said that he was tired of people “bragging” about good relationships with city council. He cited his own experience as president of the Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District and his long battle to deal with some pressing issues that had been vexing the district for years. He said that at the time, relationships with city council were “worthless” and that the people bragging about them were “completely wrong.” He continued on to say that, “if the city has a choice of taking millions of dollars of your money, or respecting a relationship, they will take the money.” However, at the very end of his statement, he did add that, “I know how to build coalitions because I’ve already done it.”

Austin Energy

The candidates’ political ties and unique approaches to governance particularly reveal themselves in issues related to Austin Energy. In keeping with his “less is more” approach to government, Zimmerman has called for the publicly-owned utility to be absolved and replaced with a free marketplace of competitive energy providers. But in his typical caustic style, he also called Austin Energy a “cartel” and wrote that people who choose to spend money on green energy, “can’t do math and science.”

At the KUT Ballot Boxing Forum, Zimmerman offered up his reasoning behind calling for the break-up of Austin Energy, saying that other metropolitan areas in Texas with competitive electric markets have “significantly, significantly” lower utility bills.

Despite Zimmerman’s enthusiasm, his statement is a gross exaggeration. By the city council’s own rules, Austin Energy rates must not rise by more than 2 percent per year and must fall in the lower 50th percentile of Texas utility rates. That means that despite what politicians might say, Austin utility bills are at the very least, cheaper than half of all electric bills in Texas. And because of Austin Energy’s progressive tiered rate structure, which encourages residents to conserve energy by charging heavy users of electricity at a higher rate than those that use less, Austin Energy’s rates for customers who use 500 kWh of electricity or less are extremely low. In the month of October, the average bill for an Austin Energy customer using 500 kWh of electricity was cheaper than the bill from nearly every other electric provider in the state.

When comparing the average 1,000 kwh hour bill (which is the average usage for a single family home) across the state, Austin Energy still fares pretty well. In the month of October, there were only a handful of electric providers in Texas who charged their customers less than Austin Energy.

In addition, an analysis conducted by Austin Energy found that in Texas’ other large cities (Corpus Christi, Dallas, and Houston), the average utility bill is on par with those in Austin. Since other Texas cities have competitive electricity marketplaces where customers can choose their electric providers, utility bill prices can range wildly. The Austin Energy analysis found that while the absolute lowest prices available to customers in these cities tended to lower than Austin Energy’s (by a couple of dollars), at the high end, each city had bills at least $20 higher than Austin Energy’s for a residential customer using 1,000 kWh of electricity.

Zimmerman also lambasted the utility for “wasting money on unsustainable green energy.”

Flannigan immediately shot back at Zimmerman, reminding him that, “by law it’s rates have to be in the lower half of rates state wide.” He also challenged the premise that investing in renewable energy sources is a waste of money, pointing out that Austin Energy’s most recent solar contract was secured at record low prices. “And in fact,” Flannigan said, “all of the recent generation plans that have gone before council have key affordability metrics in place, because we all know that you can’t just do the nice thing if nobody can afford to live in Austin.”

However, Flannigan’s support for maintaining Austin Energy as a publicly-held utility does not mean that he is swooning over every little thing that the utility does. Even Flannigan has his problems with the utility, namely, the millions of dollars that it transfers to the City of Austin’s general fund annually. Although he has not said outright that the transfers should be eliminated, on several occasions he has called for more “transparency” in how the funds are allocated. These transfers from Austin Energy to the city’s general fund, are essentially a “third tax levied on most of Austin, impacting low-income residents the most,” Flannigan wrote in response to a Chamber of Commerce questionnaire. Throughout his campaign he has tied utility rates to affordability and Flannigan sees these general fund transfers as a potential opportunity for lowering energy bills. “It is nice that it helps keep other tax rates lower than they would be otherwise, but there is often little discussion on if the projects it funds are necessary or productive for Austin,” Flannigan said in a Reddit MMA from the summer.

• What the heck is a general fund transfer? How does it relate to government transparency? …
• The City of Austin owns Austin Energy. That means that the utility’s profits don’t go to a large company or a group of stockholders at the end of every year. Instead, as a publicly held utility, that money goes back to the city to help fund city services.
• Each year, Austin Energy transfers about $105 million to the City of Austin’s general fund. The city’s general fund is used to pay for things like parks and recreation, libraries, animal services, and planning and development. Seventy percent of the fund is used to pay for the city’s police, fire, and EMS departments.
• Austin Energy’s annual $105 million transfer provides for about 12.5 percent of the city’s general fund. According to Austin Energy, this transfer provides the city with roughly the same revenues as a 15-cent or 30 percent property tax rate increase.
• While Austin Energy has long couched their general fund transfer as a great benefit to the community, the Real Estate Council of Austin (RECA) labels it as something else entirely – a tax.  In their 2013 tax burden index report (which measures the average tax burden for a family living in Austin), RECA found that Austin Energy’s general fund transfer amounts to a $399.78 tax burden on the average family of four living in Austin. This has turned the transfer into an easy target for candidates looking to tackle Austin’s affordability issues.
• The transparency of this general fund transfer has also been called into question. Each year, Austin Energy release a report about the money that it transfers to the City of Austin. It includes an itemized list detailing each of these transfers going back at least 10 years. On most of these items, Austin Energy is very clear. For example, in 2013 the utility contributed $14,000 toward the city’s Juneteenth celebrations and $100,000 to the Hispanic Futures Conference, which provides Hispanic AISD students and their families with the tools and resources they need to succeed in college and life. Overall, Austin Energy spent $52 million on these itemized community programs, economic development initiatives, and payments for city services. It spent $105 million on the transfer to the city’s general fund, but unlike the $52 million, this transfer was not broken down into specific purchases. On the utility’s spreadsheet, it simply reads, “General Fund Transfer.”
• Once this money reaches the City of Austin, it joins the larger pool of money that makes up the city’s general fund. The revenue sources for this general fund are clearly accounted for here. City Council and staff then take this pool of money and divide it up to pay for city services like parks, libraries, police, EMS, and fire.
• So yes, it is true that the exact dollars that are transferred from Austin Energy to the City of Austin are not tracked to see precisely which of these city services the transfer pays for. However, the general fund budgeting process is open and transparent and results in a clear breakdown of where general fund revenues are spent>>
• The larger question that Flannigan and other candidates might be getting at is whether or not Austin Energy should be transferring money over to the city’s general fund at all.

Flannigan has also raised concerns over local solar targets for Austin Energy that have been recommended by several recent citizen task forces. When asked about a recommendation made by the Local Solar Advisory Committee to generate 200 MW of local solar (with half coming from rooftop solar) by 2020, Flannigan questioned the economics of the plan. He said that the overall goal is “laudable,” but cautioned that, “we must be careful about requiring rooftop solar if there are more cost effective or efficient uses of resources elsewhere.”

This economically-focused approach to renewables is illustrative of Flannigan’s larger campaign message. At a forum on Austin Energy issues, Flannigan summed up his approach this way –

“There are a lot of people who are afraid of District 6,” Flannigan said. “At the end of the day, you have to find someone who can reach out to those constituents, who can bring District 6 along. My background as a Chamber of Commerce leader gives me the language to do that.”