IT’S IMPORTANT FOR US, AS CITIZENS, to be aware of what our city staff and City Council members are doing, as they are the rule makers for our town. After attending the June 17 Council meeting, I became concerned with how the annual grant proposals introduced by the Community Sustainability Commission were addressed by this governing body.
The agenda for the evening was to go over grant proposals that had been submitted to the CSC, which then made recommendations for granting seven of the 13 proposals. They presented the Council with three well-delineated tiers of charted options, noting the ones they felt most qualified for the monies available, though they added that all submitted proposals had their merits.
Financial backing for these yearly distributed grants comes from a large legal settlement made between the Good Neighbor Steering Committee, a small group of volunteers from the Benicia citizenry, and the Valero Refinery. It was amended in 2010 to include the city of Benicia as a third party in the settlement agreement. Members from the GNSC initiated the CSC, which is currently an advisory committee to the City Council and, as such, was the overseer of the grant funding process.
The CSC’s vision for these grants was that they create a ripple effect throughout the community by promoting programs that offer alternatives in how to be more sustainable individually and community-wise, in line with Benicia’s Climate Action Plan. Special emphasis was placed on proposals dealing with reducing water and energy use and greenhouse gas emissions. This included projects that would educate the public on these issues. The groups chosen for funding by CSC were typically grassroots nonprofits and small businesses that met the above criteria, with top priority given to those seeking funding who did not have an adequate source of financial assistance available to bring their worthy proposals to fruition.
One grant proposal stood out from the rest. It was from Valero. It asked for around $857,000 to install a water-reducing boiler unit. To accept this proposal would have taken the entire amount of money set aside for grants this year. Though Valero had the right to apply for a grant, one might ponder why Valero, the fourth-largest oil company in the U.S., would be in competition with small grassroots nonprofits and smaller businesses for one of these grants — especially considering that the funds available for these grants comes from the settlement with Valero! Apparently, as part of the settlement agreement, they have a right to compete with the other grants presented, yet they are not to be given special privileges or consideration for receiving one. But as it turned out, most of the almost five-hour Council session June 17 was focused on issues surrounding Valero’s request, to the detriment of most of the other grants, which got little or no floor time.
If Valero’s boiler unit is built, it would cause a major reduction in water usage at the refinery. That easily fits the water reduction aspect of the grant criteria. Since the refinery uses 50 percent of our city’s raw water supply, and our city received no water allotment from the state this year, there is a pressing need for all of us to reduce requirements for our city’s water. For the first time in our history, we are relying upon stored water.
However, the issue with offering Valero a city-funded grant to install a new boiler stems from the fact that Valero has ample funds to complete this desired project on its own. It has been revealed that making this change to their facility would pay for itself in a year’s time with a million-dollar water cost savings to the refinery. When one contemplates the short- and long-term benefits to Valero, and consequently to our city, one is led to wonder why the decision to make this change didn’t happen long before now as part of a cost-effective business plan.
As a city, do we want to set a precedent of having our grant funds disproportionately doled out to highly profitable corporations that don’t need our financial assistance to make the needed difference in lieu of giving attention to other grant proposals that are deemed valuable but are unable to operate without grant approval? Are we missing the point of providing these grants? Are we dishonoring the intrinsic value of the other would-be grantees because they can’t compete with a large corporation? Is it really necessary to make a “deal” with Valero to get our other programs funded?
The proposed “deal” brokered by Councilmember Alan Schwartzman and Valero General Manager John Hill during the Council session was certainly handled in an unorthodox manner. Since it was written up in the June 19 edition of The Herald, I won’t repeat details of that discussion, though it would be fair to say it appeared this “deal” may have been discussed privately by those promoting it prior to the meeting without the full knowledge of others who would normally be part of such negotiations. Councilmembers Schwartzman, Mark Hughes and Christina Strawbridge voted for the “deal.” Mayor Elizabeth Patterson, who voted by phone during the session because she was out of town, and Vice Mayor Tom Campbell voted against it.
In all the talk about Valero’s grant proposal, one of the excluded parties was the Good Neighbor Steering Committee, which was not informed of the Schwartzman-Hill deal, nor solicited for its members’ perspective. This was highly irregular since that group of citizens is the originator of the settlement agreement that has provided the funds being debated. They are still involved, by law, with carrying out all aspects of the settlement, along with the city and Valero.
The decisions on the other grants was delayed and will be taken up again at a future Council meeting, which leaves the awarding of funding up in the air until then. If you have a vested interest in grants up for approval this year, you might want to pay closer attention to what is happening.
As we know, the Council has the power of the vote, but we as citizens have the right to voice our opinions on such matters.
Judith Sullivan has been a Benicia resident for 35 years.
Sharing is caring!
Thankyou, Judith:
I agree with your assessment 100%.
The council needs to remember who elected them to office and who they represent. As far as I’m concerned Valero should NOT be on the same grant application list as small community cultural groups that need grants for their survival. Schwartzman’s alleged brokering of a “deal” sounds highly suspect, irregular, and in need of serious scrutiny. Peter Bray, Benicia
Valero’s application for a grant does nothing more than reinforce the fact that they exercise the corporate greed that is so readily apparent in Big-Oil. Valero has the funds to install a boiler unit 100 times over. So, what is really at the heart of this matter?
Thomas: I agree with you and I suspect it’s “pandering and flexing” its “presumed authority and political moneyed-muscle” in view of the pending Crude by Rail issue…but then, I haven’t been a Benicia activist since 1987-’97, so what do I know? And whose side of the fence is the Council on anyway?
I think the council move was very good for the city. Many folks are just anti big business and for sure anti fossel fuel. You know, the ones I call Enviro Greenies. Talk about sore losers. Add 1.6 mil put back in and 850 taken out. That adds up to a net gain of about 750 thou. Now tell me where the council went wrong. This group wants total control of the Good Neighbor money as if it was their very own check book. It is not and was never intended to be. It is certainly OK to take an opposing view. But the acqusations against a council member are way over board. Remember that vote was 3/2. Any one with any political brains knows what this is about. Notice they never said a word about the Feasability study. It was #1 on the list and the Valero project was last with no recommendation. What does that tell you. A very anti big business group lead by our own mayor, CSC and that small group of followers. They are now motivated by the coming election. I believe I do know who their candidate will be. Just watch their political tactics. They will not be pleasant and will be vicous. Most of these folks are clueless about a CCA and in fact apparently do not read. We do have a water issue. This move will help that issue. This group even said another council member maybe should recuse themselves from a vote because of past employment. That council member has no history of lobbying for any item before a council vote. Should be very embarressed about that question. But at the same time thinks it is ok for the mayor to lobby against Valero with e-alerts and OP ED’s. A very one way vicious group.. By the way a private discussion before the meeting. Just what does that mean? You them mention the three council memnbers who voted for it. Maybe you are getting to a Brown Act violation. Be very careful. Strong words from a sore loser that is motivated by what I do not know..
From the June 19 Herald article referenced in this piece: “The refinery had applied for $852,000 for a boiler construction project that would save 38 million gallons of water each year and annually prevent the release of the equivalent of 3,796 metric tons of carbon dioxide into the air.”
Some considerations to be made regarding this:
1) What other projects does the City have in mind to save 38,000,000 gallons of water at a cost of just over 2 cents per gallon?
2) What other projects does the City have in mind to prevent 3,796 Metric tons of ‘global warming causing’ pollutants into the air?
Unless there are viable plans in place to meet both of the above benefits to the residents of Benicia, then those are two very good reasons as to why the City should consider this grant.
Some other comments:
How much beyond the grant money is Valero investing in this project?
Based on the 12 month ROI cited by Elizabeth Patterson in the June 19th piece, this sounds like a very viable project, however: Is that calculation based on receiving the funds or not receiving them? One would assume it is based on not receiving them, which would indicate Valero is being unreasonable in this request. But without all the numbers, we would not have all the facts.
Now Dennis there you go confusing them with facts. Now Dennis you know very well this issue is not about facts but agenda driven ideals. Like they hate big business when it is fossil fuel related. Your last paragraph was a corker. They will not get it.
I find it strange and a little contradictory that the writer seems to ,think Valero does not need the grant. But talks about small groups or non-profits such as Marin Clean Energy {MCE.} Mce got an $18,000 grant for A Feasibility Study. Number one on the list for grants by the CSC.Now would’ not you think this small non-profit could have paid for that study by themselves. After all the top dog makes close to $300,000 a year. $18,000 seems to me to be a small amount that they could have squezzed out and absorbed without even a ripple. I call that no different than Valero getting their grant approved. Just think about it for a minute the top dog on this small non-profit makes close to $300,000 a year. Not a bad pay check for a small non-profit. Maybe the writer should apply for a position. This is not about grant positioning it is about anti big business and the writer knows that. Number one on the list was anti PG&E with a very weak argument that it will decrease green house gas. Do your homework on that. Last but not least on the list was Valero. The single most important grant on the list with a no funding recommendations. Again anti big business. That is all this is about anti big business except when you want their grants and any funds you can get from big business for your own agenda driven ideals. Quit trying to fool the fine Benicia residents. We have caught on to your agenda.
The current article claims “It has been revealed” that Valero will save $1 million in reduced water costs per year. A previous comment claimed that Valero saved only “0.03 percent” of their water use with the project. Both cannot be true and in fact neither is true. The untreated water rate in Benicia is about $450 per acre-foot ($1.02 per hundred cubic feet). for the first 150 cubic feet, over that, it is by agreement. The savings is 116 acre-feet. Unless Valero, by agreement pays about $10,000 per acre foot for water the City sells to others at $450 per acre-foot, the are not saving $1 million per year on reduced water bills. At $450 per acre foot, Valero would pay about 2.25 million per year for all their water and with this project they would save only about $50,000 per year. The 116 acre-f00t savings is about 2.5% of their use, not 0.03% and 116 acre-feet represents the annual usage of about 350 homes.
The 3500 metric tons of carbon savings comes from not having to heat the water. That is also a real savings in energy to Valero. Unfortunately, the CSC did a lousy job of evaluating the proposals and none of this information was available to the Council. Of the projects they did recommend, many had no water savings at all or small savings (or in a couple of cases, ridiculous estimates of savings that in at least one case was pointed out, admitted to be a “guesstimate” and was too high by a factor of about 50…that went through to the Council unchanged despite the admission that the estimate was not based on anything real.). This is important because the agreement specifically gives water saving projects priority.
Bottom line: a proper job by the CSC would have avoided this: The Valero boiler project would have been properly analyzed (as would the others) and recommended at a lower funding level (given the cost savings by Valero, a cost share is properly in order), and money would have been left over for other worthy projects. Instead we see finger pointing and a failure to take responsibility for a poor performance in evaluating projects.
Everything you say is true and I will not doubt it unless there is further info. But that is not the real issue. The real issue is agenda driven ideals. The opponents claim back room deals, possibly Brown Act violations. Any thing that can make folks believe there was a pre-planned outcome. Facts and research are of no importance to these folks.. Just take the Mayor and the CSC as the gospel with no consequences or fact finding review. This group is only agenda driven in a very selfish manor with no concern for the fine Benicia residents. A very dangerous group..
Excellent information Mr, Gartrell!
Thank you for posting it.
Some economists have proposed certain factors that will soon lead to a decline in demand for oil. In its rise, oil has fuelled many conflicts. It may continue to do so as it falls. For all that, most people will welcome the change.