District 8 Runoff Summary

If you’ve been paying any attention to the news lately, you know this about the District 8 runoff election – the choice is clear. Partisan ideologies have stormed their way into the race, bringing with them a predictable set of debates and arguments. The Republican “taxpayer advocate” Ellen Troxclair is facing off against Democrat Ed Scruggs in a race that is putting basic environmental principles and protections in jeopardy and questioning the very direction and growth of the City of Austin. The concerns that the candidates have raised and the topics that they spar over are serious, and certain to remain on the table regardless of who wins. That means that all you party-line voters out there should still read this article, even if you’ve already decided who you’re voting for. The issues debated by Scruggs and Troxclair will live on well beyond the Dec. 16th election and you don’t want to be blindsided.

 

Austin Energy

As a self-proclaimed taxpayer advocate, Ellen Troxclair has railed against the City of Austin’s burgeoning budget during forums, interviews, and debates throughout her campaign. At the District 8 Ballot Boxing forum, she spoke with incredulity about the city’s roughly $3.5 billion annual budget, pointing out that it is significantly larger than that of Dallas or San Antonio, despite the fact that Austin has a smaller population. “We need someone who is going to take a hard look at the budget and refocus our priorities on basic city services,” Troxclair said.

 

  • A quick sidebar about city budgets However, her comparison to Dallas and San Antonio is somewhat erroneous. While it is true that Dallas’ budget is almost $1 billion less than Austin’s, Dallas does not own an electric utility, as Austin does. In fact, Austin Energy eats up 37 percent of the city’s budget. Without it, it would be reasonable to suspect that Austin’s budget would drop precipitously. In the case of San Antonio, which does own an electric utility (CPS Energy), the city’s budget is also roughly $1 billion less than Austin’s. However, San Antonio does not factor in CPS Energy’s own $531 million budget into its larger city budget. Austin, on the other hand does, which makes the city’s budget look larger than it actually is at a first glance.
  • This does not mean that Troxclair’s point is not well taken or echoed amongst the residents of District 8. A rising budget and property taxes were a major issue in the District 8 general election and will most likely continue to be one in the runoff, despite Troxclair’s slight exaggeration of the problem at hand.

 

In waging her crusade against rising taxes, Troxclair has taken great pains to single out Austin Energy. While she has not said anything outright about her opinions toward privatizing the utility, she has railed against the city’s high budget (which is partly the fault of Austin Energy) and the utility’s annual transfers to the City of Austin’s general fund.  

For those of you who haven’t attended one of the City of Austin’s thrilling budget briefing sessions, here is what Troxclair is talking about:

  • 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.
  • Troxclair, who is a real estate agent herself, has echoed RECA’s position throughout the campaign trail, advocating for Austin Energy to stop transferring money to the city’s general fund and instead, “apply it to cost-savings and efficiencies that would ultimately lower costs to all Austin Energy customers.”

 

Troxclair has raised other issues with Austin Energy as well, particularly taking aim against the handling of the August 28th city council meeting, at which the Clean Energy Resolution was passed. This resolution established a new goal for the utility to obtain 60 percent of its energy from renewable sources by 2025.

But the meeting was not without controversy. The Austin American-Stateman reported that the city council told everyone at the meeting to go home, because the issue would be picked back up again the next day. According to the Statesman, city council then quickly changed their minds, and took the vote after many people had cleared the room.

Several environmental organizations took issue with the Stateman’s portrayal of the meeting, saying that the decision was made after months of research and negotiations.

Troxclair does not see it that way, and has brought up this Aug. 28th city council meeting on several occasions, in interviews, videos, and forums. “This is unacceptable and we deserve better,” she said during her candidate statement on ATXN. When asked at the KUT Ballot Boxing forum whether or not she would have voted for this resolution, she said, “absolutely not,” mainly citing the manner in which it was passed. However she also raised concerns about the content of the resolution, saying that while renewable energy goals are important, “we do have very aggressive goals already in place,” and that, “we need to talk about the $1 billion price tag and some of the other implications it brings.”

In responding to his environmental questionnaires, Scruggs on the other hand, came out in support of a 60 percent renewable energy goal, writing that he firmly supports it, so long as the city’s affordability targets are maintained as well. “In addition to wind and solar contracts,” Scruggs said, “we should commit to ambitious local production goals and strive to see solar panels atop every public school, library and government office building.”

At the KUT Ballot Boxing Forum he tied the whole thing back to climate change, saying that he would have voted for the Aug. 28th resolution because, “climate change is real.” He said that Austin is a leader, “so we have to begin to act… but within affordability goals of course.”

 

Partisan Divide

Although city council elections are nonpartisan on their face, you don’t have to dig too deep to figure out that the District 8 runoff race is a classic Republican/Democrat duel. Ed Scruggs founded the Circle C Democrats, “a Democratic club and state registered political action committee dedicated to building party ID, community service and the election of Democrats representing SW Travis County,” according to the organization’s website. Scruggs was also a delegate to the 2012 Democratic National Convention in Charlotte, North Carolina and has been endorsed by several local democratic organizations, including the Austin Environmental Democrats, Stonewall Democrats of Austin, and Central Austin Democrats.

 

Troxclair runs in an entirely different circle. She is the chief of staff to Republic state representative Jason Isaacs (R-Dripping Springs), who was named the Texas Oil and Natural Gas “2013 Legislative Champion” during the last legislative session. A representative from the Statewide Joint Association Education Initiative, an organization that educates the public about the oil and natural gas industry, said in a press release that Isaac was given the award as a, “symbol of our appreciation for recognizing that a robust oil and gas sector helps to keep our state economically strong.”

During his time in office, Isaac has sponsored and written bills that express opposition to the federal regulation of hazardous waste, water, and clean air, as well as the federal regulation of the production and exploration of oil and natural gas.

 

In addition to working for a Republican lawmaker, Troxclair has also been endorsed by a major Republican 501c4 nonprofit organization, Texans for Fiscal Responsibility (TFR). The group is chaired by Tim Dunn, a wealthy oil and gas developer, and has been called one of the largest dark money pots in Texas by Texans for Public Justice, a liberal watchdog group.

Although in the past, TFR has mostly focused on statewide elections, it is now starting to make its way into “nonpartisan” local elections. Last year, TFR opened a satellite office in North Texas and played a big role in the Midland mayor’s race, according to the Texas Tribune.

“I believe the Midland mayoral race is ground zero in the fight against big government liberalism and the effort to turn Texas blue,” Dunn wrote in a personal letter to voters at the time.

In endorsing Troxclair, TFR wrote that, “Ellen sees better than most how poor fiscal stewardship in City Hall has driven up the cost of living in Austin. Understanding that lower property taxes, less spending, and commonsense building codes are the best way to increase affordability, Ellen would be a welcome voice in the council chambers.”

 

In keeping with Troxclair’s devotion toward fiscal responsibility, she has signed the Citizens for Tax Relief NOW candidate pledge. Citizens for Tax Relief NOW is a citizen-led issue organization that aims to educate Travis County residents on local government spending and debt. The pledge that Troxclair signed (and Scruggs did not) said that she promises to audit the City of Austin, advocate for a full 20 percent homestead exemption, and support annual operating budgets that do not exceed the effective tax rate.

 

  • A quick sidebar about homestead exemptions …. What is a homestead exemption? A homestead exemption removes part of the value of a homeowner’s property from taxation, effectively lowering their tax bill. However, when city council crunched the numbers in August for a 20 percent homestead exemption, they discovered that it would cost the city $35.5 million. Both Troxclair and Scruggs support a 20 percent homestead exemption.

 

Water

And of course, no discussion about District 8 politics would be complete without mentioning water. District 8 is home to Barton Springs, and while this water source serves all of Austin, whoever represents District 8 will undoubtedly have a great deal of influence over it. This is an area where once again, Scruggs and Troxclair have clearly separated themselves. On her website, Troxclair does not even identify water or Barton Springs as one of her six issue priorities. Scruggs gives the issue top billing on his campaign’s webpage. Troxclair has also come out in support of SH 45SW, writing in response to a RECA questionnaire that, “the voters approved the bond for the right of way for SH 45 many years ago, and it’s past time to follow through.” She continued on to say that, “TXDOT and other entities involved have clearly demonstrated their commitment to addressing environmental concerns and have gone above and beyond to ensure the protections of the aquifer.”

Scruggs, on the other hand, opposes the road, writing in response to a Sierra Club questionnaire that he has long been a vocal opponent of SH 45SW on both environmental and transportation planning grounds. He also countered Troxclair’s position that all environmental concerns have been addressed, calling TxDOT’s study of the road’s environmental impact “incomplete” and faulting the road for potentially increased sound and light pollution, as well as public safety concerns.

 

S.O.S.

On the city’s Save Our Springs (S.O.S.) ordinance, which is designed to prevent development from degrading the city’s water quality, the candidates also differ wildly. During the KUT Ballot Boxing Forum, both were asked if development over the Edwards Aquifer degrades water quality. Troxclair gave a somewhat noncommittal answer, saying that the city needs to reevaluate aspects of the S.O.S. ordinance in light of recent strides in technology that can provide for the protection of the Edward Aquifer in new ways. “The strict, confusing, complicated development codes that we have in the city make it almost impossible to do business….,” Troxclair said.

Scruggs, on the other hand, seemed almost shocked by Troxclair’s answer, responding with a simple, “well, of course it degrades water quality.” He went on to explain that it’s “basic hydrology” that gravity is going to take polluted groundwater down into the underwater table. “We are stewards of this land,” Scruggs pressed on. “We need to use the existing regulations that we have and new technology, and always keep in mind that we’re fortunate to live here, we’ve been blessed to live here.” He ended on a confident note, saying that, “I think we need to work within the bounds of the SOS the best we can and use our new technology to protect that.”

 

No Comments

Post A Comment