■ Array of projects and programs slated to get funding, including BRIP, gardens, bicycling
Benicia City Council will consider Tuesday whether to approve Community Sustainability Commission grants using money from the Valero-Good Neighbor Steering Committee settlement agreement fund.
The account was established for Benicia and Benicia Unified School District use through the Valero-Good Neighbor Steering Committee Settlement Agreement. Money in that account can only be used for specific projects or expenditures, based on the agreement’s provisions.
In 2008, the refinery and the steering committee agreed that of the $14 million settlement account, $200,000 should be spent on air quality monitoring; $50,000 for hybrid cars; $700,000 for trees; $1 million each for a refinery buffer and watershed acquisition; $400,000 for reducing greenhouse gas emissions by Benicia Unified School District; $10 million for water conservation; and $600,000 for Climate Action Plan projects.
In 2010, the pact was modified to allow $2.85 million for the Community Center, $1 million for the BUSD and Liberty Campus Community Center, and $1.4 million for the Valero Condensate Recovery Phase II project to save 23 million gallons of water a year.
In lieu of attorney fees, $150,000 also was earmarked for community gardens, a renewable energy manager, energy conservation, a school horticultural program and bicycle racks.
In the middle of considering grant applications that had been approved by the CSC, a majority of the Council on June 17 concurred with Councilmember Alan Schwartzman’s proposal that would swap any claim on the money by Valero in exchange for approving the refinery’s request for $829,000 toward a new boiler that would help the company save 38 million gallons of water annually and prevent the release each year of the equivalent of 3,796 metric tons of carbon dioxide into the air.
The refinery had asked the CSC for $852,000, but the commission gave it no support, and assigned the project the lowest score among those asking for grants.
The Council split 3-2, with Mayor Elizabeth Patterson, on a conference call from Washington, and Vice Mayor Tom Campbell opposed.
For its part, Valero Benicia Refinery has submitted a letter agreeing to withdraw its credit for the condensate recovery project in exchange for the grant.
“Given the withdrawal of the Condensate Recovery Phase II project, there is currently $1.6 million in unallocated funds for future projects from the settlement agreement,” City Manager Brad Kilger and City Attorney Heather McLaughlin wrote in a joint report July 9.
At the June meeting, Schwartzman cited the significant water savings the boiler project would produce, more than some of the projects that had gotten CSC recommendation for approval.
Once he received an oral confirmation from John Hill, the refinery’s vice president and general manager, that the company would be amenable to the switch, Schwartzman pointed out the tradeoff would free up more money for many of the projects that had received CSC favor.
In their joint report, Kilger and McLaughlin quoted the settlement agreement that “Priority shall be given to water reduction projects but additional projects that are greenhouse gas reducing, sustainable or energy efficient and support the city’s Climate Action Plan may be considered and recommend(ed) for approval if the Sustainability Commission finds that the project will provide a greater value than proposed water reduction projects.”
They wrote that the CSC heard applicants’ requests May 7 during a special meeting, after which it ranked the applications May 19, looking to spend not only discretionary funds but also the money that had been proposed for the condensate recovery project’s second phase, saying that Valero hadn’t met its obligations to the panel and the city.
Valero officials disagreed, saying a presentation to the CSC should have been considered the mandatory review of the refinery’s project.
The CSC offered the Council two options, depending on whether the condensate recovery money was available. Instead of approving either option, the Council majority backed Schwartzman’s proposal that also provided money to cover Benicia’s application and feasibility study to determine if the city could join Marin County’s community choice aggregation electricity provider organization.
Kilger and McLaughlin called the receipt of Valero’s letter agreeing with the exchange “good news, since it allows the Council to fund a majority of the recommendations made by the CSC.”
The two wrote that in anticipation that the Council would limit grants to unrestricted funds, the CSC had recommended approving $18,000 for the community choice aggregation feasibility study, expected to save 651 metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions, even if there were no water savings; $52,840 for Benicia Community Gardens for its sustainable back yard program, expected to save 42,500 to 45,750 gallons of water and 10 metric tons of carbon dioxide; $100,000 for the Benicia Resource Incentive Program (BRIP), designed to save 250 metric tons of carbon dioxide and an unknown quantity of water; $20,000 for the CSC’s Bicycle Benicia program, to save 23.1 metric tons of carbon dioxide, if no water; $17,500 for the Benicia Tree Foundation’s program to plant a thousand trees, which wouldn’t save water but would sequester 21.5 metric tons of carbon dioxide; and $40,000 for a workspace for Benicia Makerspace, a request that would save neither water nor reduce greenhouse gas emissions unless participants develop projects that would do that.
Kilger and McLaughlin also wrote that the CSC had hoped the Council also would agree that the condensate recovery money would be available, and that it would approve $716,301.58 for its own water and energy conservation project, which it said could save from 521,362 to more than 58 million gallons of water and from more than half a metric ton to 70 metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions; $52,840 on the Benicia Community Gardens’ sustainable backyard project, saving 42,500 to 45,750 gallons of water and 10 metric tons of carbon dioxide; $100,000 for the city’s Benicia Resource Incentives program, which would save an unknown amount of water and 250 metric tons of carbon dioxide; $100,00 for the city Public Works’ water rebates, saving 624,360 gallons of water and 3.7 metric tons of carbon dioxide; $46,000 for Benicia Parks and Community Services drip irrigation system, saving 1.8 million gallons and 2.2 metric tons of carbon dioxide; $153,000 for the same department’s water irrigation system, designed to save 3.6 million gallons of water and 4.2 metric tons of greenhouse gas; $11,328 to Benicia High School’s ECH2O Academy, designed to save 102,000 t 110,000 gallons of water but an unknown quantity of greenhouse gas, $60,970 to Benicia Unified School District’s CalSense Water Management System to save 1.3 million gallons of water and 3.2 to 5 metric tons of carbon dioxide; $17,500 to the Benicia Tree Foundation to plant a thousand trees, which wouldn’t save water but would reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 21.5 metric tons; $48,407.42 to Solano Resource Conservation District (RCD) for Suisun Marsh Watershed education, expected to save 5.1 million gallons of water, and an unknown amount of greenhouse gas; and changing the source of the WattzOn residential water program so $293,653 of its previously approved contract payment would come from Valero-GNSC money.
Instead, the Council adopted a resolution to award $829,000 to the Valero boiler project, which had been developed during city employees’ discussion with Valero employees about ways to fight the statewide drought if the refinery withdrew its claim to the designated money for condensate recovery, and $18,000 to the community choice aggregation feasibility study.
Those two awards allocated all the remaining Future Projects funding, Kilger and McLaughlin wrote.
McLaughlin determined that if the condensate recovery project is withdrawn, its Valero-Good Neighbor Steering Committee money could be used for any water reduction project, she and Kilger wrote in their report.
Though the exchange makes more money available for the requests the CSC recommended for approval, there’s not enough to fund them all, the pair wrote.
The CSC’s water conservation rebate proposal, originally developed to vie for all the condensate recovery money, relies on the Community Action Plan coordinator or someone else to administer the program.
Kilger and McLaughlin wrote that those duties weren’t made part of the CAP coordinator’s work plan, and there aren’t enough city employees to do the work.
“Therefore, prior to approval, staff requests that the City Council refer the matter back to the CSC and staff,” they wrote.
They also recommended that the WattzOn allocations remain unchanged.
If the Council agrees, they wrote, money could be awarded to the community gardens, Public Works Department, parks and Community Services, Benicia High School, the city’s school district, the tree foundation and the Solano RCD. with $180,955 left over.
The two reminded the Council that BRIP is an award-winning program that has reduced greenhouse gas and helped the city’s economic development efforts, and suggested applying some of the money there.
“The availability of the CRP II (condensate recovery project phase II) funds provides flexibility to the City Council to consider most, if not all, the projects recommended by the CSC,” Kilger and McLaughlin wrote.
“It allows funding of the full amount requested for the BRIP project, which has already yielded a reduction of 438 MTCO2 (metric tons of greenhouse gases) and saved over 15 businesses $175,000 annually in energy costs.”
In addition, they wrote, nearly $500,000 would be preserved for CSC use for other projects.
Not everyone was satisfied with the Council’s decision last month.
Patterson emailed a commentary June 21 she titled, “What in the %&*#@ happened at the Council meeting this week?”
In her email, she said that some city employees knew Schwartzman would make his proposal, but not the other members of the Council, Community Sustainability Commission Chairperson Constance Beutel, members of the Good Neighbor Steering Committee or potential grantees, who had “played by the rules going through a rigorous process presenting their grant proposals at a hearing.”
In other items on Tuesday’s agenda, the Council will decide a handful of matters on its consent calendar, which it can do by a single vote without discussion, unless someone requests an item be removed for separate consideration.
• The Council also may adopt on second reading an ordinance that would continue emergency outdoor water restrictions through Oct. 15.
Residents and commercial operators would be restricted to watering landscaping on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays if their address ends in an odd number, and Tuesdays, Thursdays and Saturdays if their address is an even number. In addition, watering can take place only from 7 p.m. to 8 a.m. on the assigned days.
From Oct. 16 to March 31, 2015, watering may be done only Saturdays and Sundays. The odd- or even-day assignments would resume April 1, 2015 and continue through Oct. 15, and the cycle would last annually until the drought ends.
Exceptions would be made for drip irrigation systems, watering with buckets or a hand-held hose with an automatic shut-off nozzle, or during irrigation system repairs.
In addition, maintenance of recreation areas, public parks and playgrounds also would have looser restrictions.
• Among other items are making minor modifications to the city’s investment policy and making other minor amendments the Fiscal Year 2013-14 budget.
• The Council will decide whether to accept the construction of the Western Gateway Intermodal Facilities Project that made improvements for pedestrians, bicycle riders, motorists and those using transit systems in the vicinity of Southampton Road and Military West. This project and a similar one at First Street and Military East and West were underwritten by a $3 million Regional Measure II (bridge toll) grant from the Metropolitan Transportation Commission.
• The panel may authorize purchase of up to $56,000 in crushed aggregate rock from Syar Industries, Vallejo, a year’s supply, and $75,000 of water distribution pipeline fittings and hardware from Roberts and Brune Co., Oakley, also a year’s supply that should see the city through June 30, 2015.
• The Council may decide to replace 100 workstations because Microsoft has announced it no longer supports Windows XP, and to extend its agreement with Renne Sloan Holtzman Sakai for the services of Interim Finance Director Brenda Olwin while the city searches for a permanent employee.
• Donald Peery will be appointed the city’s new poet laureate, succeeding Lois Requist, and the Council will hear a presentation on the status of bringing broadband service to tenants of the Benicia Industrial Park.
The Council will meet at 6 p.m. Tuesday in a closed session to consider labor and legal matters.
The regular meeting will start at 7 p.m. Tuesday in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 250 East L St.
Thomas Petersen says
Approval of the rail project should be conditional on Valero contributing an additional 1million dollars to the CSC so that they may continue their important work.
Benicia Dave says
Thanks Tom. It’s good to know that your support for the project has a price tag
Thomas Petersen says
You are……..welcome? If only I could collect. BTW – Most everything has a price tag.
Bob livesay says
Valero is the peoples company.. CSC is an individual group of Left Leaning Socialist Progressives. It is a very small group. They have no voting power onty recommendations. The council can change the amounts and delete the CSC recommendations. I do believe they just did that. Now will this Liberal group get some of what they want. Yes, but not as they want it. What a wonderful system.. The CSC and the mayor cannot stand defeat. .
Stuart Posselt says
And from where does Valero get its money? From all of uus each time we fill up. Get a million – pay a million. A tax without representation.
Bob livesay says
I assume you think Valero does not employ people who contribute to our economy. Valero is a goodeemployer and good for the city.Just another anti big business pwerson. More than likely civil servant. Without big business you have nothing and I mean nothing.
DDL says
Stuart Stated: A tax without representation.
How is a voluntary purchase of a product sold on the open market to be considered a tax?
If a resident of Benicia is opposed to Valero’s policies, are they not free to purchase gas elsewhere, such as Chevron, Dave’s Cheaper or the 76 station?
Additionally, one could purchase Valero shares of stock, in so doing a person then has a voice (representation) as a stock holder. This method of influencing business practices can be effective, if well organized, as has been done in the past.
I believe Constance Beutel wrote on one aspect of this subject (she owns shares in Berkshire Hathaway, Lucky her!).