The Community Sustainability Commission Monday Night reacted to the City Council’s decisions that approved grants endorsed by the Commission — and two that went against the Commission’s wishes. Chairperson Constance Beutel said she was blindsided by the Council’s votes.
The Commission recommended against Valero Benicia Refinery’s request for $852,000 for a boiler project that would save the city more than 38 million gallons of water each year.
Councilmember Alan Schwartzman sought to end a dispute whether the refinery was eligible for $1.6 million for its Condensate Recovery Project Phase II (CRPII) under the provisions of the Valero-Good Neighbor Steering Committee Settlement Agreement.
He obtained assurance from the refinery’s general manager, John Hill, that the company would drop its claim if the Council approved $829,000 toward the boiler project. The Council, by 3-2 vote, approved Schwartman’s move and the $18,000 grant that brings Benicia one step closer to joining Marin County’s community choice aggregation electricity supplier.
At the July 15 meeting, the Council voted 3-2 to approve most of the other Community Sustainability Commssion-endorsed grants, but boosted the amount to the Business Resource Incentives Project (BRIP) from the recommended $200,000 to the $500,000 Economic Development Manager Mario Giuliani had hoped to spend on evaluations of water and power use at Benicia Industrial Park companies as well as on incentives to help companies reduce consumption and waste output.
Both 3-2 votes saw Mayor Elizabeth Patterson and Vice Mayor Tom Campbell oppose the decisions. Campbell questioned some applicants’ use of grant money to pay for administration, and Patterson ultimately objected to the way the rest of the Council freed up the $1.6 million for the other grants, even if more money was able to be spent on sustainability projects.
The sequence of events caused Commission Chairperson Constance Beutel to question whether her panel should continue offering grants, and called the Council’s actions a “topsy turvy chain of events.”
“Why do we bother?” Commissioner Bruce Barrow said. “I don’t think we should bother.”
Patterson, who attended Monday’s meeting, said she voted against funding the additional grants not because she didn’t believe in the projects, but because the Council’s actions were “a distortion of the process. The process is the fundamental garment of democracy.”
“I frankly wonder if it was legal,” Commissioner Sharon Maher observed.
Vice Chairperson Kathy Kerridge, recalling her days as an attorney, called the Council’s procedure “negotiations,” although she suggested the Commission provide more explanation for its recommendations and find better ways to determine how much a project would save in water and greenhouse gas conservation.
One member of the audience, Ben Parsons, suggested each of the Commissioners’ “strong opinions” should be transcribed and presented to the Council.
Michael Gardner, representing the Benicia Unified School District as an ex-officio Commissioner, reminded the panel that the Council has “at heart” the best interest of it citiens, makes decisions “with the information they have,” and hears requests and recommendations from 14 advisory panels.
He said the Council saw the matter as a choice of freeing up funds for more sustainability projects “or tie the money up in litigation for years.”
The Commission has $479,000 remaining in the money over which it has authority to recommend grants.
At one point, Beutel suggested the panel issue requests for proposals to address specific conservation areas; however, several Commissioners disagreed, saying it could stifle creative solutions in other areas.
In other matters, the Commission heard Climate Action Plan Coordinator Alex Porteshawver describe difficulties in the way the sustainability website operates, how there is little funding available to improve or change that website, and how some other outreach methods have fallen short of engaging residents about sustainability projects.
One exception is the annual Clean Tech Expo, which has seen attendance rise significantly.
In acknowledgement of Maher’s note that half of the city’s population is between 18 and 40, Commissioners suggested that Porteshawver use free social media, cooperative city partners and other inexpensive outlets to promote the Commission’s activities until funding can be secured to upgrade the sustainability website.
Bob livesay says
The CSC are acting like children. Using threats for sure. This commission is on its last legs. My suggestion is to follow the lead of the co-ordinator. You have turned off the residents and that should not have happened. In this city Climate Action Plan should be a very easy sell . This commission has turned their goal into a very anti big business group. That is not your goal or your mission. For the chair to suggest that maybe the panel should discontinue offering grants is very bad behavior coming from an accomplished adult. Another questioned the legality of the councils action. I see someone who wants to run for a city council position. Very anti big business and for sure an agenda driven person. The mayor goes as far as to say the councils action are a distortion of the process. Explain that one Mayor Patterson. This group thinks they are not part of the process but an independent body that needs no direction and their words and decisions are final. They forgot on thing they are appointed and approved by the council and everything they propose must be approved by the council when it comes to grants. That they do not like. My suggestion is to let the co-ordinator handle all future correspondents . Stop the OP EDs, LTTE and anti big business approach you have now taken as your mission and goal. Solid info and not agenda driven opinons are your own down fall. They have nothing to do with what the CSC is. You have gone way over the top. As I will repeat just step back and let the very qualified co-ordinator carry the ball from now on. She is the best thing you have so let her move it forward. Will you learn from these past council decisions or will you continue to use the mayor as your battering ram. I suggest not to do that.
Greg Gartrell says
The CSC brought this on themselves by not following normal and proper procedures and with a process that was flawed from the beginning. The Settlement Agreement requires that the priority be given to water conservation projects. To give money to other projects there must be findings (normally these are supported by substantial evidence). The CSC produced no findings, they just went off on their own and came up with a list that did not give priority to water conservation projects. Further, they did a terrible job of analyzing the projects. They could (and should) have quantified the water and energy savings of each project. They could (and should) have quantified the monetary savings Valero would get from its projects and suggested a cost share. The could (and should) have looked critically at the claims of each of the applicants. They could (and should) have produced findings on why they were deviating from the Settlement Agreement priority.
Example of their sloppy work: the CSC’s own project (water conservation for Benicia) claims that they would get up to 30% water savings in 2 years by offering up to $1000 for high efficiency washers and toilets for low income, seniors and other residents. They claimed they would do this for 8000 households in the first year, and another 8000 in the second year. At $1000 per household, that is $16 million total, but they asked for a budget of $1.3 million. That does not quite add up. But neither does the 8000 households: the Urban Water Management Plan for Benicia says there are only 7,800 single-family residential households connected to the system. The CSC proposal goes on to grossly overestimate the water savings. This was pointed out to them at a meeting (by me) a year ago, so what did the CSC do? The Chair said the numbers were a “guesstimate” and the CSC sent the proposal on to the Council with the bogus numbers, where it was recognized the numbers did not add up and rejected. Other proposals the CSC uncritically sent on also have exaggerated savings (though none to this degree).
The CSC needs to focus on doing their job properly.
Bob livesay says
Outstanding. You say the same thing I am saying but in much better technical way. Thank you.
Stan Golovich says
I think the city council should disband the CSC and hire the CAP Coordinator as a contractor to manage the whole thing as the staff “Energy Czarina”.
Bob livesay says
It does appear the residents are catching on. I believe I did say the co-ordinator should take the lead. Now there is even more drastic comments made about the CSC,. Stan I do support your comment.