The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2014-04-15 CorrespondenceMarch 24, 2014 Dear Mayor Hayek and City Councilors, I 4e(1) WAMINEffid 'ot W# of 'W=C M ca On behalf of the members of the Iowa City Telecommunications Commission and the local cable access television community, I write to share our appreciation of City of Iowa City Cable Administrator Robert "Bob" Hardy, who is retiring after many years of service. Bob helped cultivate public, educational, and government access programming and facilities in Iowa City since its humble beginnings decades ago. Bob was a producer and supporter of early Public Access Television. As manager of the City Channel, Bob shared his gift for telling compelling stories. His staff helped channel this talent into engaging and informative programming shown on local cable TV and the Internet. Bob was also a founding member of the Community Television Group, which granted special equipment funding applications to access providers, such as portable microphones and camcorders for Senior Center Television. As cable television administrator, Bob fielded questions and complaints from consumers about cable television and Internet service in Iowa City. Each month he reported on diverse issues that were resolved by connecting consumers directly with Mediacom staff who could address the concerns. Bob is an active follower of legislative issues affecting citizens' access to media and protection of the First Amendment, and is plugged in to advocacy groups like the Alliance for Community Media and American Community Television. Bob educated the Iowa City Telecommunications Commission on these issues, so we can better inform Iowa City residents. We thank Bob Hardy for his dedication to free access to media for all citizens, and his lengthy service to the City and its constituents. We are pleased to share our gratitude with you and hope you will recognize his commitment, too. Very truly yours, `� Iowa City Telecommunications Commission 410 EAST WASHINGTON STREET • IOWA CITY, IOWA 52240 -1826 • (3 19) 356 -5000 • FAX (3 19) 356 -5009 Marian Karr 4 From: Charles Stanier <charles.stanier @gmail.com> Sent: Friday, March 28, 2014 8:48 AM To: Rick Fosse; Council Subject: regarding my other email Attachments: EST trash to ethanol.pdf I should I included this with my previous email. I found this article very helpful in evaluating strengths and weaknesses of solid waste to ethanol. Charles (Charlie) Stanier personal email: charles.stanier @gmail.com professional email: charles- stanier @uiowa.edu Environ. Sci. TechnoL 2009, 43, 5183 -5189 Cellulosic Ethanol from Municipal Solid Waste: A Case Study of the Economic, Energy, and Greenhouse Gas Impacts in California MIKHAIL CHESTER* AND ELLIOT MARTIN Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, California 94720 Received October 1, 2008. Revised manuscript received April 10, 2009. Accepted May 20, 2009. As cellulosic ethanol technologies advance, states could use the organic content of municipal solid waste as a transportation fuel feedstock and simultaneously reduce externalities associated with waste disposal. We examine the major processes required to support a lignocellulosic (employing enzymatic hydrolysis) municipal solid waste -to- ethanol infrastructure computing cost, energy, and greenhouse gas effects for California. The infrastructure is compared against the Business As Usual case where the state continues to impart most of its ethanol needs from the Midwest. Assuming between 60% and 90% practical yields for ethanol production, California could produce between 1.0 and 1.5 billion gallons per year of ethanol from 55% of the 40 million metric tonnes of waste currently sent to landfills annually. The classification of organic wastes and ethanol plant operation represent almost the entire system cost (between $3.5 and $4.5 billion annually) while distribution has negligible cost effects and savings from avoided landfilling is small. Fossil energy consumption from Business As Usual decreases between 82 and 130 PJ largely due to foregone gasoline consumption. The net greenhouse gas impacts are ultimately dependent on howwell landfills control their emissions of decomposing organics. Based on the current landfill mix in the state, the cellulosic infrastructure would experience a slight gain in greenhouse gas emissions. However, net emissions can rise if organics diversion releases carbon that would otherwise be flared and sequestered. Emissions would be avoided if landfills are not capable of effectively controlling emissions during periods of active waste decay. There is currently considerable uncertainty surrounding the recovery efficiency of landfill emissions controls. In either case, burying lignin appears to be better than burning lignin because of its decay properties, energy and carbon content We estimate the breakeven price for lignocellulosic ethanol between $2.90 and $3.47/gal (Ft = $3.13/gal). 1. Background Ethanol use as a transportation fuel has long been a near - term additive and substitute for gasoline. Backed by govern- ment legislation, tax subsidies, and private investment, corn - based agriculture has established itself as the country's leading supply of ethanol feedstock. Nationally, ethanol consumption as a transportation fuel has grown, on average, * Corresponding author a -mail: mchester@cal.berkeley.edu; phone: 501- 332 -0145. 13% annually since 1992, and in 2007 comprised 3.3% of gasoline consumed by volume (I -3). While this growth has been significant, the long -term prospects for corn -based ethanol are uncertain. Extensive allocation of prime agrarian land exclusively to fuel feedstock production has raised concerns of the potential impacts on food prices and supply. With 12% of the U.S. population and about 11% of gasoline consumption, California's impact on ethanol demand is significant (1, 4 -7). But with little in -state production, California and other states rely on corn -based ethanol mostly from the Midwest (8) . For many reasons, policies at the federal and state level have encouraged the increased use of ethanol. But while California is an agriculturally productive state, its demand for conventional ethanol is at conflict with its large and diverse agrarian economy. To satisfy long -term demand for ethanol or other biofuels without increasing pressure on agrarian land -use intensity, the state will have to rely on more diverse biomass feedstocks. Cellulosic ethanol production, which pretreats biomass to expose simpler sugars bound within plant matter, offers a potential pathway for diversifying the feedstocks available. As a subject of research and recent demonstration efforts, there is currently a significant effort to lower the costs and improve the technol- ogy of cellulosic ethanol production (9, 10). If such efforts are successful, California and other states may benefit by exploring specific feedstock and production scenarios to serve their future needs for renewable energy. This paper explores some of the effects of developing a statewide production capacity of cellulosic ethanol using the organic material in municipal solid waste (MSW) as the feedstock. The 37 million metric tonnes (further referred to as mmt and metric tonnes as mt) of MSW sent to landfills in California each year is composed of 55% organics including paper, lumber, yard waste (leaves, grass, branches), and food waste, all of which could technically be used for cellulosic ethanol production (11). Previous studies have suggested that the production potential of ethanol from MSW is large (12,13). The goal of this study is to independently assess this potential, and further to describe the necessary infrastructure expansions, cost, energy, and emissions from a life -cycle perspective that would be required to divert the organic fraction of MSW to ethanol production. 2. Methodology This analysis incorporates an important distinction between MSW and other biomass -to- ethanol production systems. Because an MSW -to- ethanol system implies a diversion of feedstock, as opposed to the cultivation of additional feedstock, the system boundary needs to encompass the change in costs, energy consumption, and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from Business As Usual (BAU) of this diversion. Defining this system boundary involves not counting impacts that would happen regardless, deducting impacts that would be avoided, and adding impacts that would occur as a result of diversion. For example, the need to collect MSW regardless of its end use implies that energy and emissions from the collection should not be included in the life -cycle assessment (LCA). The diversion of organic MSW to ethanol production causes no significant change to the collection process. Analysis throughout the entire system takes a similar perspective, considering what costs and impacts change with the addition or elimination of material flow to various system processes. The impacts of the production system are allocated across five primary stages. Within each stage, we consider the net 10.1021/es802788z CCC: $40.75 © 2009 American Chemical Society VOL. 43, NO. 14, 2009 / ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY ■ 5183 Published on Web 06/17/2009 monetary cost (in 2008 dollars) of capital expansion and production from the perspective of a vertically integrated system. We also consider net energy and GHG impacts that would result from system operation. For stages requiring capital expansion, we assume that all financing is obtained through commercial term loans with an 11% annual return and that all capital is operated for 25 years. The stages considered include those that are direct and indirect in the production of ethanol. This includes the displacement of gasoline by ethanol, as well as the elimination of emissions from waste that would have otherwise been landfilled. The five main stages considered are Classification (sorting), Production, Distribution, Combustion, and Landfilling. The first four of these stages are directly connected to the production, delivery, and use of MSW- derived ethanol. The final stage is the result of impacts that would not happen when a certain fraction of MSW is diverted. Collection occurs regardless of whether diversion to ethanol production occurs, while some cost savings from avoided landfilling are obtained. 2.1. Feedstock. This analysis exclusively considers MSW destined for landfills. This excludes recyclable materials (which are destined for material remanufacturing) as well as agricultural and forest residues (a different collection system). Data on the amount of landfilled MSW are collected by the California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB) for each county (14). Based on CIWMB waste characterization profiles, the balance of waste by category (organics, paper, plastics, metals, etc.) was determined for each county. Commercial -scale cellulosic ethanol plants do not yet exist, but ethanol yields and operational costs have been estimated by several government agencies. The National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) operates a small -scale cellulosic ethanol facility and tests cellulosic material to determine practical ethanol yields (15). The chemical com- position of organic matter determines the theoretical ethanol yields for specific materials (12). In practice, 60 -90% of the theoretical yield can be achieved for most feedstock types and previous research has suggested that for raw MSW, ethanol yields of at least 75% are achievable with specific pretreatments (16, 17). For this reason, the baseline analysis assumes a practical yield of 75 %, but a sensitivity analysis explores yields ranging from 17% to 90 %. The ethanol yield factors apply to dry matter and the reported wet tons are adjusted for known material moisture contents (13, 18). Out of all landfilled material roughly 20 wet -mmt of waste usable for cellulosic ethanol is generated by California annually as of 2005 (11, 13, 14, 18, 19). This is composed of 38 % paper, 27% food waste, and 18% construction and demolition lumber, with the remainder being textiles and green waste. The wet tonnes of waste constitute the mass that must be transported from transfer facilities to ethanol plants. The dry mass constitutes the material that can be converted to ethanol. The balance of organic waste in California is 32% water, leaving 15 dry mmt convertible to ethanol. A breakdown of California's organic waste is found in Supporting Information (SI) Figure S1. This analysis assumes that all landfill- destined organic waste can be separated from nonorganics at either the source or processing facilities and transferred to ethanol plants. However, relaxing this assumption would scale yields linearly. Annual growth in ethanol demand has matched growth of waste generation in California at 4% over 1990 to 2005 (19). 2.2. Ethanol Plants. The analysis assumes that ethanol plants employ cocurrent dilute acid prehydrolysis as the primary form of pretreatment before enzymatic hydrolysis. This process was chosen primarily because detailed capital and production costs, along with production energy and emissions have been modeled in the greatest detail by existing research (20). Because there are many competing processes of cellulosic ethanol under development, we do not presume 5184 ■ ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY/ VOL. 43, NO. 14, 2009 that the process applied here would be the leading candidate for MSW conversion (21). But we believe the estimates here do provide a best proxy for the costs, energy, and emissions parameters that would result from such a system. The analysis also serves to place the importance of plant factors in perspective with the complete system. The costs, energy, and GHG emissions are estimated for the construction and operation of plants. Capital cost estimates are sensitive to economies of scale and are nonlinear with plant capacity (20). We assume that new facilities have a capacity of 50 million gallons per year (MGY), which was about the average size for ethanol plants in operation across the country in 2005 (22). There are several studies that discuss the capital costs of cellulosic plants though, most derive their estimates from models developed at NREL (20, 23, 24). The NREL study estimates costs for a 25 MGY facility (20). We apply their cost scaling function to compute the analogous costs for a single 50 MGY facility (25) The components of capital and operation costs are assigned to appropriate sectors in the Economic Input - Output Life -cycle Assessment (EIO -LCA) software tool to determine supply chain effects (26). EIO -LCA computes the life -cycle impacts up to the use of the final product by calculating economic transactions and associated environ- mental impacts upstream of a product's deployment. EIO- LCA's most recent data, for 1997, are assumed reasonable given that the technologies in major plant subprocesses evaluated have not changed significantly since this year. A list of EIO -LCA sectors used to evaluate plant construction and processes is found in SI Tables S2 and S3. Life -cycle costs and impacts from production are tallied annually, while capital costs and impacts are annualized over the 25 -year life of the plants. Lignin is a byproduct of cellulosic ethanol production and is 61% carbon by weight (27). Current models of cellulosic ethanol production incorporate the combustion of lignin to recover energy from the remaining residue and export excess electricity to the grid (20,28). A comprehensive energy balance of the ethanol plant is found in ref 25. For nearly all feedstocks, this improves the economics of production as it offsets electricity production. The resulting GHG emissions from the combusted lignin are typically not counted because it is considered nonfossil carbon. For MSW, the carbon released from organic matter decomposing in landfills is also nonfossil but the carbon would have otherwise been buried. Hence, the carbon emissions from lignin combustion should be considered when the avoided landfill emissions are counted as a benefit. 2.3. Classification. Raw MSW would be classified into organic and inorganic fractions prior to use in an ethanol plant (29). We assume that preplant classification must produce an organic feedstock that would be acceptable for producing compost. This would constitute an upper bound of necessary classification infrastructure and costs. Facilities that process unsorted MSW for the extraction of a com- postable feedstock have been built and operated over the past two decades within the U.S. (30). Roughly 12% of California's waste destined for landfills is processed to extract recyclables (31). High - capacity facilities that are capable of processing a mixed -MSW stream to extract a refined organic feedstock require more extensive capital investment than typical transfer facilities. Capital costs for such facilities range from $24,000 to $53,000 per mt capacity per day (all costs are in $2008) (32). We assume the lower bound because such cost estimates constitute new facility costs, whereas much of the capital in transfer facilities has already been established and additional requirements would be more consistent with upgrade expenses. Augmented capacity is assumed to occur as needed at existing facilities. In total, the capacity of waste facilities capable of handling mixed waste would have to expand by about 32 mmt /year, which is 88% of annual flow to landfills. The operating costs of the processing facilities are assumed to be similar to those faced by transfer stations engaged in commingled recycling. We consider a lower bound opera- tional cost to be $27 /mt, the processing cost for urban green waste in San Jose, CA (30). We assume slightly higher operational cost of $33 /mt is spent for MSW classification since more than green waste is processed and the facility operates 260 days per year (33). Because each wet ton of waste is classified, the total system cost is highly sensitive to the per -ton classification cost. There exists a fair degree of variability and uncertainty in transfer facility energy requirements. Dennison summarizes the energy expenditure literature of recycling systems (34). Based on this review and the current state of knowledge, we assume a high estimate of 330 MJ /mt for all waste clas- sification within the state delivered in the form of electricity. 2.4. Distribution. We model the complete feedstock to fuel distribution system to compare it against existing practices of importation from the Midwest. The major movements of the in -state MSW -to- ethanol system include feedstock delivery to the ethanol plant and ethanol delivery to points of consumption. The distribution model comprises four phases: (1) locating the ethanol plants, (2) distributing the feedstock from the 58 counties to the plants, (3) distribution of the ethanol from the plants to the gasoline distribution terminals, and (4) distribution of the ethanol (now mixed with gasoline) from the gasoline refining counties to all counties for consumption. Ethanol plants are located using a capacitated clustering heuristic, demand at gasoline terminals is based on the fraction of fuel that refineries process, and ethanol demand is assumed proportional to gasoline consumption (35 -37). The waste distribution phases all occur by truck with a cost of $0.15 /mt -mile and a fuel economy of 100 mt -miles per gallon of diesel (38, 39). The truck emits 210 g of Greenhouse Gas Equivalence (GGE) per mt -mile (40). GGE normalizes CO2, CH4, and N20 into a CO2- equivalence factor (with weightings of 21 and 296 for CH4 and N20). For ethanol distribution phases, tanker trucks are used to transport the ethanol. These vehicles cost $0.18 /mt -mile and have fuel economy and GGE emissions similar to those of a garbage truck (38). In the BAU case, rail is used for most of the ethanol transportation from the Midwest to California, but truck distribution occurs in- state. It is assumed that rail costs $0.07/ mt -mile, has an economy of 370 mt -miles per gallon, and emits 31 g GGE per mt -mile (38 -40). 2.5. Landfilling. The removal of MSW that would have otherwise been buried in a landfill potentially reduces GHG emissions from the biodegradation and landfill management of that material. Landfill life -cycle emission factors are specified in the U.S. EPA's WAste Reduction Model (WARM) (41). This model quantifies the GHG emissions for each waste material by considering transport, biodegradation, and carbon sequestration. The WARM model reports emissions by material type for landfills that have no recovery, flaring, and landfill gas -to- energy (LFGTE) facilities. To estimate emissions from California landfills, average state - specific material emission factors were computed based on the mix of landfill types (42). California has a cleaner landfill mix (31% no recovery, 21% flared, and 48% LFGTE) than the U.S. (41% no recovery, 28 % flared, and 31 %LFGTE) due to ahigher percentage of LFGTE landfills. This results in state average emission factors for paper and organics that are about one - half as large as U.S. average factors (43). Highly mechanized mixed -waste classification systems are currently built to extract recyclables from raw waste. A system capable of extracting the 21 mmt /yr of organic MSW feedstock can extract 2 mmt of ferrous metals from the MSW each year. The additional material recycled leads to fewer landfill management resource inputs and biodegradation GHG outputs. Using a $41 /mt tipping fee, the total avoided cost of landfilling the organics and metals is $390 million (M) /yr. The energy use avoided in landfill management is quantified from EPA energy factors for each material (43, 44). 2.6. Combustion. The combustion of ethanol instead of an energy - equivalent amount of gasoline or ethanol from other sources has broad implications for fossil energy and GHG displacement. The exact nature of these implications depends on fuel that is displaced by the additional cellulosic ethanol. In -state ethanol may displace Midwestern ethanol or it may displace gasoline that would have been consumed otherwise. From a supply side perspective, it is clear that the market for ethanol as an additive to gasoline is far from saturated. At about 3.3% of the nation's gasoline consump- tion, ethanol is well below the technical limit for the conventional gasoline fleet (2, 3). However, fuel prices, demands, and regulations can have a variety of effects on actual consumption. Scenarios can arise in which ethanol produced in California displaces ethanol from the Midwest. One case increases the U.S. ethanol supply as California ethanol displaces the energy equivalent amount of gasoline and ethanol production in the Midwest is not reduced. At the other extreme, California ethanol displaces only Mid- western ethanol, coupled with a reduction in Midwestern production. In this case, California ethanol is displacing ethanol from another region and nationwide gasoline consumption stays constant. The total energy and GHG impacts of gasoline displace- ment also include the associated supply chain energy and emissions required to produce the equivalent amount of gasoline (26). The total energy and GHG displacement is considered to be the energy and carbon embodied in the gasoline displaced and the supply chain energy and GHG avoided in that gasoline production. 2.7. Land -Use Impacts. Recent analyses of biofuel pro- duction systems have focused attention on the impacts that changes in land -use have on system emissions (45). The emissions of N20 (a very potent greenhouse gas) are heavily driven by the use of nitrogen fertilizers applied in the cultivation of many crops including corn. While the impacts of fertilizer and land -use are a concern for any cultivated feedstock, the negative land -use impacts from MSW -to- ethanol systems are minimal. There are no concerns of N20 emissions from fertilizer use, and MSW diversion should have no direct impact on shifts in crop production. Although outside the scope of this analysis, the land -use implications of MSW -to- ethanol systems are likely positive, due to the reduced need for landfill space, and avoid significant direct or indirect land -use emissions impacts. 3. Results The results summarize the annualized total cost, energy use, and GHG impacts that we estimate would be incurred if the state established the infrastructure and operation of a system that converted the organic material within MSW to cellulosic ethanol. The results include the impacts from capital expenditures and financing costs as well as continual operations, annualized over 25 years. The analysis allows us to determine the price of ethanol that would be required to cover the total costs of this entire infrastructure outlay, including operation and payment to investors. Given baseline assumptions, this price is about $3.13, but changes to specific factors could easily produce prices between $2.90 and $3.47 per gallon. This is the price that would have to be achieved over the next 25 years for the system to cover all costs including interest payments on borrowed capital. This VOL. 43, NO. 14, 2009 /ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY ■ 5185 breakeven price is from the perspective of an investor in the vertically integrated system. This is opposed to amore realistic arrangement in which waste firms, ethanol firms, and gasoline firms are separate and buy the respective com- modities at some profit margin. The costs stated in this study do not consider profit margins of participating entities (except lenders), which would ultimately raise the actual costs given. 3.1. Yields. Practical yields suggest a production level between 1.0 and 1.5 billion gallons per year (BGY) (at 60% and 90% theoretical yields). Exceeding the 900 MGY of current state demand is achievable given the quantity of organic matter in MSW. The expected 1.2 BGY production from landfilled waste assumes that 100% of organic waste currently sent to landfills is alternatively sent to cellulosic ethanol plants. The 1.2 BGY potential would require about 25 cellulosic plants in the state, each with a capacity of 50 MGY. 3.2. Ethanol Plants. The combustion of lignin releases large amounts of CO2 due to its high carbon content. The choice of burning or burying is addressed by comparing state emissions of imported electricity. The electricity in California produces fewer GHG emissions per kWh than electricity produced by burning lignin (a comparison of GHG emissions when burning or burying can be found in SI Table S4). Thus, the production pathway that minimizes CO2 emissions consists of landfilling the lignin as opposed to burning it. The results show that if MSW derived lignin is burned for electricity, the net CO2 emissions will be greater than if grid electricity is used. Burial as a pathway for minimizing GHG emissions with biomass has been considered before by Metzger et al. among others (27). They suggest that while combustion of biomass does displace fossil CO2, an alternative path in which combustible biomass is sequestered and the equivalent fossil derived electricity is used instead would displace even more CO2. Burying biomass can be better than burning if anaerobic decay is not a concern. Unlike most biomass, lignin exhibits very low levels of anaerobic decay (46). When considering this lignin- specific factor of GHG during decay, the burial of lignin is the better pathway for MSW derived ethanol. The annual production, annualized capital, and financing costs for a 50 MGY plant are $55, $11, and $21 M /yr, respectively, for a total cost of about $87 M /yr. Operational energy includes energy spent at the plant as well as upstream in the supply chain (47). The GHG emissions from plant operation include those derived from electricity to power the plant and gases vented during the ethanol conversion. This emission rate is computed at 4900 g GGE /gallon. For a 50 MGY facility, this amounts to a total of 250,000 mt GGE/ yr. Considering this emissions rate for production alone, ethanol plant operations would emit 6.1 mmt GGE /yr. SI Table S2 details the costs, EIO -LCA sectors, and resulting energy and GHG emissions from plant construction and operation. The life -cycle greenhouse gas emissions are split into two components: upstream emissions from plant construction and operation. Upstream emissions from plant construction are a one -time 260,000 mt GGE. Averaged over the life of the facility, this amounts to 10,000 mt GGE /yr. Upstream emissions for operation are 34,000 mt GGE /yr per facility. The total annualized emissions of an ethanol plant are roughly 290,000 mt GGE /yr. 3.3. Classification. The analysis assumes that all of the 37 wet -mmt of waste annually produced in California are processed for organics and metals with the remaining waste shipped to landfills. The classification stage constitutes the second largest overall net cost of the entire system at $1,900 M /yr. This cost is composed of $130 M /yr in capital expansion, $260 M /yr in financing, $2,000 M /yr in operation, and a revenue stream of $490 M /yr from recovered metals. The total cost of this system component is highly sensitive 5186 ■ ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY / VOL. 43, NO. 14, 2009 to the processing cost. Capital costs, when annualized over 25 years, are not as significant. The total energy required to process all material is 12 PJ /yr. The GHG emissions resulting primarily from electricity consumption are 930,000 mt GGE/ yr. 3.4. Distribution. A benefit of using landfill waste as a feedstock is that demand and supply are geographically similar. In contrast to all other biomass resources, organic MSW is unique in its proximity to population centers, avoiding the large transport distances and associated costs that are typically required to bring supply to demand centers (48). The total distribution impacts amount to $120 M in freight transport cost, 1,100 TJ of energy use, and 150,000 mt GGE emissions. While these transportation requirements are large, they should be compared with what will continue to happen in BAU. Midwestern supply of the state's demand has much larger ton -mile shipments than a 3 -stage in -state distribution. Importing the equivalent amount of corn - ethanol from the Midwest is dominated by the 6.3 billion (B) mt -miles by rail instead of the 390 M mt -miles in -state by truck. A shorter truck distribution phase adds 0.4 M ton - miles. The total importation costs and impacts are $490 M, 3,100 TJ, and 270,000 mt GGE per year. This constitutes 4.0 times the cost, nearly 2.8 times the energy, and 1.7 times the emissions. However, in spite of this relative reduction, it is important to recognize that the net impacts of transporting feedstock and ethanol are small compared to the overall system. 3.5. Landfill. The impact of waste diversion from landfills is significant if a large fraction of the organic material is diverted from landfills that do not control methane emissions. The energy saved from not landfilling the materials is roughly equivalent to the operational energy spent classifying the material for ethanol production. The dynamics of landfill emissions have critical implica- tions for the system. Landfills operate as net - carbon sinks. However, the greenhouse potency of methane emissions from anaerobic decay of landfill material leads to net positive GHG emissions from landfills with no recovery equipment. Flares and generators that convert the methane to CO2 reduce this potency. The entire system impact on net GHG emissions depends significantly on how widely such equipment is deployed and how effectively it operates. Given the balance of facilities in California, and the facility factors as defined by the EPA WARM model, the emissions avoided from removing organic material from landfills is 3.6 mmt GGE /yr. Avoiding these emissions would amount to roughly a third of the total GHG reductions in the entire system. If the balance of recovery facilities were closer to the national average, the avoided emissions would amount to 7.4 mmt GGE/ yr. The difference between California and the U.S. illustrates the impact that assumptions on landfill facility performance and distribution can have on assessing the net impact of diverting organics. 3.6. Combustion. The 1.2 BGY of ethanol has an energy content of 110 PJ. This energy is equivalent to 840 MGY of gasoline. A 16% supply chain energy factor was used such that for every 100 TJ of gasoline, 16 TJ was required to produce the fuel (26). This 16% supply chain factor is composed of a 9% direct (gasoline refining) component and a 7% indirect (all other sectors which support gasoline refining) compo- nent. This factor is smaller than other estimates and likely a conservative estimate of gasoline supply chain effects (49). The energy analysis draws a distinction between fossil and nonfossil energy. Ethanol is the only nonfossil energy utilized throughout the entire system. The total energy consumption includes only fossil energy consumed and displaced. Because fossil fuel energy displaced is equivalent to the ethanol energy produced, the additional 16% of displaced fossil energy in petroleum refining is important. TABLE 1. Annual Costs, Fossil Energy Consumption, and GHG Emissions to Produce 1.2 BGYa 'Totals may not sum due to rounding. F = fossil carbon GHG emissions. NF = non - fossil carbon GHG emissions. The consideration of CO2 emissions from ethanol com- bustion is interpreted differently. Because the total system considers emissions that do not occur as the result of avoided landfill decomposition, it is appropriate to consider the additional emissions that result from the combustion of ethanol. Ethanol releases less CO2 than an energy equivalent volume of gasoline during combustion because the carbon content of ethanol and gasoline are different. The combustion of the 110 PJ of ethanol results in 7.1 mmt GGE released versus gasoline which results in 7.4 mmt annually. The supply chain releases from gasoline refining result in an additional 1.4 mmt. 3.7. Summary. The yearly cost to California to establish and operate a complete MSW- to- ethanol production system would be $4 B. This effort would displace 110 PJ of fossil energy and result in a slight increase in GHG emissions. The majority of the monetary costs result from the processing of the waste stream to recover organics and the construction of 25 cellulosic plants. These two phases constitute 97% of the total yearly cost, with distribution and reduction in landfilling yielding a small savings. The major phases impacting fossil energy use are ethanol plants (constituting 61 % of total fossil energy) and avoided gasoline combustion. Changes in distribution result in 89% fewer mt -miles shipped and the reduced material landfilled implies less energy required for waste disposal. The critical reductions in GHG impacts are derived from the landfilling and combustion phases. The reduced GHG emissions from avoided landfilling and gasoline combustion result in 12 mmt GGE /yr avoided. The combustion of ethanol adds 7.1 mmt GGE /yr to the emissions from classification and production. Ethanol com- bustion produces 50% of total GHG emissions while avoided emissions from landfills and gasoline combustion are about double this effect. A summary of costs and impacts from all phases is shown in Table 1. Dividing the annual cost by the annual gallons of ethanol produced yields the $3.13 /gal breakeven price. In 2008 ethanol prices climbed from $2.50 /gal to about $3.30 /gal in July and closed the year at around $1.80 /gal, highlighting the market's price volatility (50). Recall that these prices reflect a privately financed investment at a venture capital return and account for revenue offsets such as the recovery of metals from waste classification. In addition, we assume that costs of collection do not change and continue to be paid by municipal entities as they are today, a subsidy not present with other feedstocks. 4. Sensitivity A sensitivity analysis is conducted to evaluate the contribution of specific input parameters to total system cost, energy, GHG emissions, and ethanol production. The input param- eter ranges and distributions were bounded by assumptions based on learning curves, economies of scale, and parameter ranges established from other literature. The parameters evaluated were selected based on their magnitude of system influence and include the following: 1. The practical yield of the ethanol plant is varied between 17 % and 90% influencing the total volume of ethanol produced within the state between 0.3 and 1.5 BGY (15, 17, 29). 2. The facility lifetimes are varied between 20 and 30 years. 3. Financing costs are varied between a 5% and 15% rate of return. 4. Given the sparse literature on lignocellulosic plants, the cost of operating these facilities ranges from an expected lower bound (40% cost reduction) to an upper bound (100% cost increase). 5. The operational cost for waste classification is specified between $29 and $52 /mt. 6. Landfill GGE emission factors are varied based on landfill compositions. The lower bound of emissions (largest offset) comes from a mix of landfills that have no recovery systems. The upper bound is defined by all LFGTE facilities. A Monte Carlo simulation is applied with the input parameter's distributions specified. Discussion of ranges in output parameters are based on a 90% certainty interval and are specified annually. Total system cost is between $1.3 B and $5.0 B where the low end occurs at low operational classification and ethanol plant costs. Fossil energy avoidance ranges from 13 PJ to 130 PJ affected primarily by the amount of ethanol that is produced (thus displacing gasoline) and plant energy requirements. GHG emissions are strongly influenced by the state LFGTE composition and LFG col- lection efficiency. The emissions range from 16 mmt avoided (all no recovery landfills in California) to 7.3 mmt emitted (100% LFGTE facilities and a high collection efficiency). The breakeven price of cellulosic ethanol varies from $2.90 to $7.20 per gallon. The significance of these bounds is addressed in the Discussion section. 5. Discussion The total cost to California for a MSW to ethanol infrastructure is driven primarily by the ethanol plant and classification components ($4.1 B of the $4.3 B expenditures). The $2.3 B plant annual cost is largely the result of operating expenses (63% of total costs) with the remainder as capital and financing. With classification, total cost is also driven by the processing cost. Other classification components constitute only 17% of the total. Given the baseline system assumptions, reductions in fossil energy consumption result primarily from displacement of gasoline and avoided emissions at the landfill (140 PJ /yr). This is only partly offset by fossil energy increases in the plant and classification phases (32 PJ /yr). The result is a fossil energy reduction of 110 PJ /yr. Displacing fossil energy is one metric in which MSW- derived ethanol appears to perform well. The key advantage is the avoidance of feedstock collection as a cost, as it would happen regardless of diversion alternatives. The collection process would be a significant fossil input if it were counted. The avoided impact of diverting organic waste from the landfill presents the greatest system uncertainty. This uncertainty is large enough that it can flip the change in GHG emissions from positive to negative. It is rather clear that if landfills have no facilities recovering methane from disposed waste, then diverting MSW to ethanol production reduces GHG emissions by a substantial margin. The uncertainty arises when landfills install gas recovery equip- ment including flares and generators. The WaRM model factors that describe the net emission impacts from sending materials to the landfill with flaring and LFGTE facilities are negative, indicating that these facilities are net carbon sinks. VOL. 43, NO. 14, 2009 / ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY ■ 5187 fossil cost (10' $) energy (PJ) GHG (mmt GGE) classification 1.9 12 0.9 [F] ethanol plants 2.3 20 6.1 [NF] distribution 0.1 (2.0) (0.1) [F] landfill (0.4) (11) (3.6) [NF] ethanol combustion 7.1 [NF] gasoline combustion (130) (8.7) [F] total 4.0 (110) 1.6 'Totals may not sum due to rounding. F = fossil carbon GHG emissions. NF = non - fossil carbon GHG emissions. The consideration of CO2 emissions from ethanol com- bustion is interpreted differently. Because the total system considers emissions that do not occur as the result of avoided landfill decomposition, it is appropriate to consider the additional emissions that result from the combustion of ethanol. Ethanol releases less CO2 than an energy equivalent volume of gasoline during combustion because the carbon content of ethanol and gasoline are different. The combustion of the 110 PJ of ethanol results in 7.1 mmt GGE released versus gasoline which results in 7.4 mmt annually. The supply chain releases from gasoline refining result in an additional 1.4 mmt. 3.7. Summary. The yearly cost to California to establish and operate a complete MSW- to- ethanol production system would be $4 B. This effort would displace 110 PJ of fossil energy and result in a slight increase in GHG emissions. The majority of the monetary costs result from the processing of the waste stream to recover organics and the construction of 25 cellulosic plants. These two phases constitute 97% of the total yearly cost, with distribution and reduction in landfilling yielding a small savings. The major phases impacting fossil energy use are ethanol plants (constituting 61 % of total fossil energy) and avoided gasoline combustion. Changes in distribution result in 89% fewer mt -miles shipped and the reduced material landfilled implies less energy required for waste disposal. The critical reductions in GHG impacts are derived from the landfilling and combustion phases. The reduced GHG emissions from avoided landfilling and gasoline combustion result in 12 mmt GGE /yr avoided. The combustion of ethanol adds 7.1 mmt GGE /yr to the emissions from classification and production. Ethanol com- bustion produces 50% of total GHG emissions while avoided emissions from landfills and gasoline combustion are about double this effect. A summary of costs and impacts from all phases is shown in Table 1. Dividing the annual cost by the annual gallons of ethanol produced yields the $3.13 /gal breakeven price. In 2008 ethanol prices climbed from $2.50 /gal to about $3.30 /gal in July and closed the year at around $1.80 /gal, highlighting the market's price volatility (50). Recall that these prices reflect a privately financed investment at a venture capital return and account for revenue offsets such as the recovery of metals from waste classification. In addition, we assume that costs of collection do not change and continue to be paid by municipal entities as they are today, a subsidy not present with other feedstocks. 4. Sensitivity A sensitivity analysis is conducted to evaluate the contribution of specific input parameters to total system cost, energy, GHG emissions, and ethanol production. The input param- eter ranges and distributions were bounded by assumptions based on learning curves, economies of scale, and parameter ranges established from other literature. The parameters evaluated were selected based on their magnitude of system influence and include the following: 1. The practical yield of the ethanol plant is varied between 17 % and 90% influencing the total volume of ethanol produced within the state between 0.3 and 1.5 BGY (15, 17, 29). 2. The facility lifetimes are varied between 20 and 30 years. 3. Financing costs are varied between a 5% and 15% rate of return. 4. Given the sparse literature on lignocellulosic plants, the cost of operating these facilities ranges from an expected lower bound (40% cost reduction) to an upper bound (100% cost increase). 5. The operational cost for waste classification is specified between $29 and $52 /mt. 6. Landfill GGE emission factors are varied based on landfill compositions. The lower bound of emissions (largest offset) comes from a mix of landfills that have no recovery systems. The upper bound is defined by all LFGTE facilities. A Monte Carlo simulation is applied with the input parameter's distributions specified. Discussion of ranges in output parameters are based on a 90% certainty interval and are specified annually. Total system cost is between $1.3 B and $5.0 B where the low end occurs at low operational classification and ethanol plant costs. Fossil energy avoidance ranges from 13 PJ to 130 PJ affected primarily by the amount of ethanol that is produced (thus displacing gasoline) and plant energy requirements. GHG emissions are strongly influenced by the state LFGTE composition and LFG col- lection efficiency. The emissions range from 16 mmt avoided (all no recovery landfills in California) to 7.3 mmt emitted (100% LFGTE facilities and a high collection efficiency). The breakeven price of cellulosic ethanol varies from $2.90 to $7.20 per gallon. The significance of these bounds is addressed in the Discussion section. 5. Discussion The total cost to California for a MSW to ethanol infrastructure is driven primarily by the ethanol plant and classification components ($4.1 B of the $4.3 B expenditures). The $2.3 B plant annual cost is largely the result of operating expenses (63% of total costs) with the remainder as capital and financing. With classification, total cost is also driven by the processing cost. Other classification components constitute only 17% of the total. Given the baseline system assumptions, reductions in fossil energy consumption result primarily from displacement of gasoline and avoided emissions at the landfill (140 PJ /yr). This is only partly offset by fossil energy increases in the plant and classification phases (32 PJ /yr). The result is a fossil energy reduction of 110 PJ /yr. Displacing fossil energy is one metric in which MSW- derived ethanol appears to perform well. The key advantage is the avoidance of feedstock collection as a cost, as it would happen regardless of diversion alternatives. The collection process would be a significant fossil input if it were counted. The avoided impact of diverting organic waste from the landfill presents the greatest system uncertainty. This uncertainty is large enough that it can flip the change in GHG emissions from positive to negative. It is rather clear that if landfills have no facilities recovering methane from disposed waste, then diverting MSW to ethanol production reduces GHG emissions by a substantial margin. The uncertainty arises when landfills install gas recovery equip- ment including flares and generators. The WaRM model factors that describe the net emission impacts from sending materials to the landfill with flaring and LFGTE facilities are negative, indicating that these facilities are net carbon sinks. VOL. 43, NO. 14, 2009 / ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY ■ 5187 Hence, diverting materials from flaring landfills increases net emissions. The composition of LFG facilities in the state and lignin disposal options has significant impacts on landfill emissions. The results show that California's landfill mix is cleaner than the U.S. mix. If the U.S. mix were considered above, the net emissions of the system would be negative. Ultimately, while the balance of landfill GHG emissions based on these average state factors is still positive, the bounds of uncertainty in flaring and LFGTE performance invite further study. The current factors assume that all flares and LFGTE facilities perform the same and that they all exhibit 75% efficiency in capturing landfill gas (43). The validity of this assumption makes a big difference, as recent research surveying LFGTE facilities have found efficiencies ranging between 10% and 90% (51). Furthermore, some studies have suggested that higher efficiencies are found in facilities that are closed and older, while active landfills exhibit lower efficiencies. An important dynamic supporting the continued explo- ration of MSW -based biofuels is the avoidance of adverse impacts from global land -use change. Recent research exploring the implications of biofuel- driven crop shifts has suggested the presence of potentially significant increases in GHG emissions resulting from the expanded use of corn or switchgrass (45). Producing biofuels from wastes such as MSW avoids these considerations and could yield relative land -use benefits as a result of the significant diversion of material that would otherwise accelerate landfill constraints. The state of knowledge on the effectiveness of landfill gas recovery technologies is inconclusive (51). Given the current state of data, it is difficult to accurately apply performance factors without acknowledging the large amount of uncer- tainty in the performance of different recovery facilities. If the collection efficiency of landfill recovery facilities is low during decades of high waste acceptance, then current factors overestimate the performance of LFGTE in comparison to other diversion options. Unfortunately, these uncertainties matter in ascertaining whether the diversion of organics from the landfill to ethanol is a good policy decision for any large region. One insight that emerged from a carbon emissions perspective is that lignin burial appears better than lignin burning. This comparison suggests that other cellulosic ethanol systems should consider this option. Because lignin exhibits a low propensity to anaerobically decay, lignin burial may not exhibit the same emissions problems as traditional biomass burial. This suggests that lignin -based electricity production may not offer the best emissions benefits given its high carbon intensity relative to its heating value. We find that ethanol production from MSW cannot be unequivocally justified from the perspective of net -GHG avoidance. It is possible that diverting feedstock from burial could avoid net GHG emissions if gas recovery performance is overstated or is otherwise not an option. But it is clear that a better understanding of carbon sequestration and methane capture performance within landfills is necessary before more robust conclusions can be made. Acknowledgments Authors M.C. and E.M. contributed equally to this work. We thank Professor Alex Farrell whose support, guidance, and dedication to pursuing critical questions and answers in climate policy served as the foundation for this project. Professor Farrell continuously devoted his time and effort to our interest in this project and for this we are grateful. Additionally, we thank Professor Arpad Horvath for his willingness to help refine and improve the study during its final stages. 5188 ■ ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY / VOL. 43, NO. 14, 2009 Supporting Information Available This material is available free of charge via the Internet at http://pubs.acs.org. Literature Cited (1) U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics. National Transportation Statistics 2008; Table 4 -10; Washington, DC, 2008; http: / /www.bts.gov /publications/ national_transportation - statistics /2008/ (accessed 4/2009). (2) Davis, S.; Diegel, S. Transportation Energy Data Book, 27th ed; U.S. Department of Energy, Oak Ridge National Laboratory: Oak Ridge, TN, 2008. (3) U.S. Department of Energy, Energy InformationAdministration. Renewable and Alternative Fuels Data; Washington, DC, 2009; http: / /www.ela. doe. gov /fuelrenewable.html (accessed 4/2009). (4) U.S. Census Bureau. 2005 American Community Survey, Wash- ington, DC, 2006. (5) California Department of Transportation. 2007 Public Road Data; Sacramento,CA,http://www.dotca.gov/hq/tsip/hpms/datalibrary. php (accessed 4/2009). (6) California Energy Commission. Questions & Answers: California Gasoline Price Increases; Sacramento, CA, 2006; http: / /www. energy.ca.gov/gasoline/gasoline-q-and-a.htnl (accessed 2/2007). (7) U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Traffic Safety Facts 2005 Early Edition; Washington, DC, 2006. (8) Moller, R. M. A Brief on Ethanol - The Debate on Ethanol: Prospects and Challenges to California Producers. State Library of California, California Research Bureau: Sacramento, CA, 2005. (9) Perez, P. Evaluation of Biomass to Fuel Ethanol Potential. A Report to the Governor and the Agency Secretary, California Environmental Protection, California Energy Commission, August 1999. (10) Farrell, A.; Plevin, R.; Turner, B.; Jones, A.; O'Hare, M.; Kammen, D. Ethanol Can Contribute to Energy and Environmental Goals. Science 2006, V. 311, 506 -508. (11) Califomia Integrated Waste Management Board. Statewide Waste Characterization Study, Sacramento, CA, 2004. (12) California Energy Commission. Biomass -to- Ethanol Fuel Po- tential in California, Appendix VI -A; Sacramento, CA, 1999. (13) California Energy Commission. Biomass in California: Chal- lenges, Opportunities, and Potentials for Sustainable Manage- ment and Development; Sacramento, CA, 2005. (14) California Integrated Waste Management Board. California Waste Stream Profiles, Sacramento, CA, 2006; http: / /www. ciwmb.ca.gov /Profiles/ (accessed 8/2006). (15) National Renewable Energy Laboratory. The DOE Bioethanol Pilot Plant; U.S. Department of Energy: Boulder, CO, 2000; http: / /www.nrel.gov /docs /fy00osti/28397.pdf (accessed 8/2006). (16) U.S. Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Program. Theo- retical Ethanol Yield Calculator, U.S. Department of Energy: Washington, DC, 2008; http: / /wwwl.eere.energy.gov /biomass/ ethanol - yield- calculator.html (accessed 7/2006). (17) Green, M.; Shelef, G. Ethanol Fermentation ofAcid Hydrolysate Municipal Solid Waste. Chem. Eng. J. 1989, 40, B25 -B28. (18) California Energy Commission, California Biomass Collabora- tive. An Assessment of Biomass Resources in California: Sacra- mento, CA, 2004. (19) California Integrated Waste Management Board. Estimated Statewide Tonnages and Rates, Sacramento, CA, 2006; http: // www.ciwmb.ca.gov/LGCentral/Rates/Graphs/TotalWaste. htm (accessed 8/2006). (20) McAloon, A.; Taylor, F.; Yee, W.; Ibsen, K.; Wooley, R. Determining the Cost of Producing Ethanol from Corn Starch and Lignocel- lulosic Feedstocks NREL -TP -580- 28893; National Renewable Energy Laboratory: Golden, CO, October 2000. (21) Eggeman, T.; Elander, R. Process and Economic Analysis of Pretreatment Technologies. Bioresour. Technol. 2005, 96,2019- 2025. (22) Renewable Fuels Association. Ethanol Industry Outlook 2006; Washington, DC, 2006; http: / /www.ethanolrfa.org /resource/ outlook/ (accessed 2/2007). (23) Kerstetter, J.; Lyons, J. Wheat Straw for Ethanol Production in Washington: A Resource, Technical and Economic Assessment; WSUCEEP201084; Washington State Office of Trade and Eco- nomic Development: Olympia, WA, September 2001. (24) BBI International. The Ethanol Plant Development Handbook, 3rd ed.; Cotopaxi, CO, 2001. (25) Aden, A.; Ruth, M.; Ibsen, K.; Jechura, J.; Neeves, K.; Sheehan, J.; Wallace, B.; Montague, L.; Slayton, A.; Lukas, J. Lignocel- lulosic Biomass to Ethanol Process Design and Economics (26) (27) (28) (29) (30) (31) (32) (33) (34) (35) (36) (37) (38) Utilizing Co- Current Dilute Acid Prehydrolysis and Enzymatic Hydrolysis for Corn Stover, Technical Report NREL /TP -510- 32438; National Renewable Energy Laboratory: Golden, CO, June 2002. Carnegie Mellon Green Design Institute. Economiclnput Output Life Cycle Analysis Model; Pittsburgh, PA, 1997; http: / /www. eiolca.net/ (accessed 5/2007). Metzger, R.; Benford, G.; Hoffert, M. To Bury or Burn: Optimum Use of Crop Residues to Reduce Atmospheric CO2• Climate Change 2002, 54 (3), 369 -374. Wang, M.; Saricks, C., Santini, D. Effects of Fuel Ethanol Use on Fuel -Cycle Energy and Greenhouse Gas Emissions, ANL /ESD- 38; Argonne National Laboratory: Argonne, IL, 1999. Kalogo, Y.; Habibi, S.; MacLean, H.; Joshi, S. Environmental Implications of Municipal Solid Waste to Ethanol Conversion. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2006, 41, 35-41. Diaz, L.; Savage, G.; Golueke, C. Composting of Municipal Solid Wastes. In Handbook of Solid Waste Management, 2nd ed.; Tchobanoglous, G., Kreith, F., Eds.; McGraw -Hill: New York, 2002; pp 12.1 - 12.70. California Integrated Waste Management Board. Targeted Statewide Waste Characterization Study: Characterization and Quantification of Residuals from Materials Recovery Facilities; Sacramento, CA, 2006. Leverenz, G.; Tchobanoglous, G.; Spencer, D. Recycling. In Handbook of Solid Waste Management, 2nd ed.; Tchobano- glous, G., Kreith, F., Eds.; McGraw -Hill: New York, 2002; pp 7.1 -7.27. Lave, L.; Hendrickson, C.; Conway - Schempf, N. M.; McMichael, F. Municipal Solid Waste Recycling Issues. ASCE J. Environ. Eng. 1999, 125 (10), 944 -949. Dennison, R. Environmental Lifecycle Comparisons of Recycling, Landfilling, and Incineration: A Review of Recent Studies. Ann. Rev. Energy Environ. 1996, 21, 191 -237. Mulvey, J.; Beck, M. Solving capacitated clustering problems. Eur. J. Operat. Res. 1984, 18, 339 -348. California Energy Commission. California's Oil Refineries, Sacra- mento, CA, 2006; http://www.energy.ca.gov/oil/refineries.html (accessed 4/2007). California Department of Transportation, Office of Transporta- tion Economics. Estimates of Highway Gasoline Use by County, Sacramento, CA, 2006; http: / /www.dot.ca.gov /hq /tpp /offices/ ote /countygas.pdf (accessed 4/2007). Bureau of Transportation Statistics. Characteristics and Changes in Freight Transportation and Demand: AGuidebook forPlanners and Policy Analysts; Washington, DC, 1995; http: / /ntl.bts.gov/ lib /4000 /4300 /4318 /ccf.html (accessed 9/2006). (39) U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics. National Transportation Statistics 2005, Appendix A: Modal Profiles; Washington, DC, 2005; http: / /www.bts.gov/ publications/national—transportation—statistics/2005 (accessed 5/2006). (40) Facanha, C.; Horvath, A. Evaluation of Life -Cycle Air Emission Factors of Freight Transportation. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2007, 41 (20), 7138 -7144. (41) Environmental Protection Agency. Waste Reduction Model Emission Factors, Washington, DC, 2006; http: / /www.epa.gov/ climatechange /wycd /waste /calculators /Warm— home.html (ac- cessed 5/2007). (42) Environmental Protection Agency. Landfill Methane Outreach Program Database. Frequently Asked Questions About Landfill Gas and How itAffects PublicHealth, Safetyand theEnvironment; Washington, DC, 2006; http : / /www.epa.gov /lmop /faq -3.htm (accessed 4/2008). (43) U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency. Solid WasteManagement and Greenhouse Gases: ALife- CycleAssessment ofEmissions and Sinks, 3rd ed.; Washington, DC, 2006. (44) Environmental Protection Agency. Energy Impacts of Waste Management; Washington, DC, 2005; http: / /www.epa.gov/ climatechange /wycd /waste /reports.html (accessed 9/2007). (45) Searchinger, T.; Heimlich, R.; Houghton, R.; Dong, F.; Elobeid, A.; Fabiosa, J.; Tokgoz, S.; Hayes, D.; Yu, T. Use of U. S. Croplands for Biofuels Increases Greenhouse Gases Through Emission from Land Use Change. Science 2008, 319, 1238 -1240. (46) Environmental Protection Agency. A Laboratory Study to Investigate Gaseous Emissions and Solids Decomposition During Composting of Municipal Solid Wastes, Washington, DC, 2003. (47) Pimentel, D.; Patzek, T. Ethanol Production Using Corn, Switchgrass, and Wood; Biodiesel Production Using Soybean and Sunflower. Nat. Resour. Res. 2005, 14, 65 -76. (48) Wakeley, H.; Hendrickson, C.; Griffin, M.; Matthews, S. Economic and Environmental Effects of Large -Scale Ethanol Production and Distribution in the United States. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2009, 43 (7), 2228 -2233. (49) Argonne National Laboratory. Greenhouse Gas, Regulated Emis- sions, and Energy Use in Transportaion (GREET) Model, Version 1.8b; Chicago, IL, 2009. (50) Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Program. AlternativeFuel Price Report; U.S. Department of Energy: Washington, DC, 2008; http: / /afdc. energy.gov /afdc /price_report.html (accessed 9/2009). (51) Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, Kanagawa, Japan, 2006; Vol. 5, p 3.19. ES802788Z VOL. 43, NO. 14, 2009 /ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY ■ 5189 Marian Karr 4e(3) END- From: Charles Stanier <charles.stanier @g mail. com> Sent: Friday, March 28, 2014 2:04 AM To: Council; Rick Fosse Subject: fiberight comments and questions Attachments: fiberight_stanier_mar28. pdf City council, please consider the attached letter on waste -to- ethanol for Iowa City. I will also be distributing this to local newspapers and (if there is interest from their opinion editors) generating a shortened version for local newspapers. I can be reached at this email address or at 319 - 330 -2403 if you have any questions or feedback. Charles (Charlie) Stanier personal email: charles.stanier @gmail.com professional email: charles- stanier @uiowa.edu March 27, 2014 City Council of Iowa City Dear City Councilors: As a chemical engineering professor at the University with a long history of thinking about sustainability, and a former environmental engineer in industry, I have done some investigation into waste to ethanol and Fiberight and I want to write and urge caution and very careful thinking on the issues at hand. Even if Fiberight's technology works exactly as promised, it is not clear that there is a sustainability advantage for Iowa City to switch. Whether there is a sustainability advantage depends on several factors — some have to do with Fiberight's process details, others with the way the switch to Fiberight is implemented, and still others depend on the landfill gas and leachate collection and processing systems already in place in Iowa City. I have generated a list of findings from my investigation and a list of questions. I urge City Council to get answers on these questions from City staff and Fiberight prior to entering into an agreement or making changes to waste and recyclable material flows. I am not trying to derail waste -to- ethanol for Iowa City, but I know that if City Council gets answers to the questions below that the decision to proceed or not to proceed with waste -to- ethanol will be a much more informed one. I am not an expert in solid waste operations, so perhaps some of my questions are naive. But even so, the answers will still be of use to City Council for decision making. Sustainability Principles In sustainability engineering, sometime quantitative analysis is very difficult, so leading proponents have offered "Principles of Green Engineering" that can be used to screen ideas. The Fiberight technology goes against some of them, and meets others. This means that their process has to be carefully evaluated and discussed, so that the interplay of its positive and negative aspects can be understood and debated prior to adoption. http:Hwww.acs.ore/ content / acs /en /greenchemistry /about /principles.html Green engineering principles met by Fiberight: • Minimize depletion of natural resources, and minimize waste: Green engineering principles NOT met by Fiberight: • Maximize efficiency (the transport of waste to and from Marion degrades the energy benefits somewhat) Green engineering principles where the verdict on waste -to- ethanol depend on how things are implemented • Prevent and reduce waste at the source, rather than treat waste. • Conserve complexity of materials — in other words, recycle complex materials like plastic into plastic— paper into paper, etc. Reducing complex materials back to simpler materials such as ethanol and methane runs counter to this. • Holistic design / life -cycle thinking in engineering activities — don't just evaluate the process in isolation —think of the different options and their holistic impact on the environment and economy of eastern Iowa. • Stakeholder involvement — actively engage communities and stakeholders • Communication — transparency and communication are vital. • Inherent safety — make sure all inputs, intermediates, and outputs are inherently nonhazardous as possible. Minimize potential for accidental releases, explosions, fires, etc. Findings 1. The impact on statewide greenhouse gas emissions for implementation of a Fiberight -like technology has been evaluated and reported in peer- reviewed engineering research. Chester and Martin, in the journal Environmental Science and Technology, looked at the impacts to California if California implemented ethanol production on the organic fraction of its municipal solid waste (MSW). They show an increase in harmful greenhouse gas emissions when MSW 4 ethanol is implemented. The result is sensitive to the amount of landfill methane capture already in place, and to the use of renewable energy at the ethanol manufacturing stage. Although not discussed in the article, I believe the sustainability of MSW 4 ethanol will also be sensitive to the fraction of paper recycled (rather than turned into ethanol). Higher recycling fractions will likely have higher performance in terms of sustainability. 2. The breakeven price of MSW 4 ethanol has been calculated under the assumption where the ethanol producer (in this case Fiberight) captures revenue from sale of all recyclables and also produces ethanol with all organic and cellulosic wastes in MSW, including paper and cardboard. These sorts of calculations are very sensitive to assumptions, so they may not be applicable in the Iowa case, but the calculated breakeven price was between between $2.90 and $3.47 a gallon, higher than recent prices of about ^'$2.40 a gallon. Conclusions: other revenues or subsidies beyond sale of recyclables and ethanol will be required. Looked at another way, Chester and Martin found the implementation of MSW -) ethanol in California would have a net annualized per person cost of $105 per year. This is after the cost savings from avoided landfilling. These calculations are very sensitive to assumptions, so they may not be applicable in the Iowa case 3. Other volume reduction strategies are likely competitive with MSW -> ethanol. 4. For communities that don't recycle or compost, and for communities that use landfills without good methane capture, the Fiberight process will be more sustainable than the status quo; however, I do not believe Iowa City does fits this profile. Questions General Question 1. **Hasa site visit of the Virginia pilot plant been conducted by a wide range of stakeholders? In my opinion, tours by city staff would be insufficient. 2. Are claims made by Fiberight backed up by guarantees or by impartial expert assessment? Safety Questions Sorting of municipal waste poses physical, biological, and chemical hazards. 3. What is the safety record of the pilot plant in Virginia? Specifically, what is the ratio of lost time accidents to hours worked? How does this benchmark against comparative local industries? 4. When touring the plant, is there a palpable culture of safety? For example, are there full time safety engineers or other health professionals? Do the workers have tools, training, and protective equipment they need? Is there a system of continuous improvement for safety? Sustainability questions 5. ** What is the life cycle impact of the proposed changes to the Iowa City waste system on (a) nonrenewable energy use (gas, coal, oil, etc.); and (b) net greenhouse gas emissions? My research on this indicates there is a reduction in nonrenewable energy consumption but (much more importantly in my opinion) there is an increase in net harmful greenhouse gas emissions. See findings section. 6. ** Has the process been compared to energy recovery and volume reduction by other methods? I note that the leachate from the Iowa City landfill is already digested and turned to methane for energy recovery. And energy recovery from the Iowa City landfill gas is technically possible and has been evaluated in detail already. 7. ** If the City is considering comingling of all discarded materials (recyclables with non - recyclables) in one container for later separation, it needs to find cases where this has been done and show benefits outweigh problems. I foresee three problems: (1) it may lower the fraction of recycling for cardboard and paper and encourage conversion to ethanol of these materials; (2) the "free labor" currently done by citizens to separate recyclables from non - recyclables stream will be discontinued and we will pay a private firm to do this for us; (3) separating waste causes citizens, particularly children, to be aware of their wastes. While I don't have hard data on it, my assumption is that this leads to a reduction in waste — especially when coupled with outreach and education. 8. What is the environmental performance of the Virginia pilot plant like? What permits were secured for the pilot plant? Has the state of Virginia been contacted? If possible, can the permitting or inspecting state regulators be interviewed by their Iowa counterparts. 9. Does the Virginia facility have any environmental awards or certification programs such as ISO 14001? Is ISO certification on the table for the Marion plant? 10. The process of converting trash to ethanol / methane will involve diesel fuel to truck waste to and from Marion? How much? I have done a preliminary calculation of this, and trucking energy probably consumes 3 to 7% of the energy output of the Fiberight process, so it is significant but not fatal to the project. 11 How will the recycling of paper and cardboard be affected by any changes to the Iowa City MSW system. For sustainability, recycling of paper and cardboard is in general preferable to ethanol production — although for the Iowa City case I admit this depends on details of the secondary materials markets that I am not educated about. In any case, City Council and City staff should obtain clear information and educate citizens on how paper and cardboard will be handled at curbside, at any separation facilities, and ultimately, how much will get recycled versus converted to ethanol in the new system relative to the status quo. Some statements by Fiberight indicate their process will separate out paper and cardboard for recycling, but there are reasons to be skeptical. For example, the video on their website shows recovered plastics, and metal, but not paper or cardboard. And (also in their video) the waste ready for pulping contains what looks like a lot of recyclable paper and cardboard. In the Chester and Martin paper, the assumption was that for California, inorganic materials would be recycled, but that organic materials (including cardboard and paper) would be converted to ethanol. Source: Fiberight.com 12. The process will take water. How much, and from what sources? How much waste water will be generated and where will it go? 13. Will any of the waste streams generated from the process be hazardous, difficult to deal with, potentially hazardous, or need special consideration by authorities for disposal? The pilot plant should be able to shed light on this. Economic considerations 14. ** What is the basic economic model of the process? How much does it rely on income (a) sale of final products; (b) payments from municipalities for the service of reducing the volume of waste; (c) government subsidies on the final products (e.g. renewable fuel blending credit); (d) business development and employment tax credits from state and local government; (e) research and development grants; (f) below market -rate sources of financing such as government loans targeted at research and development. For assumptions that govern economic viability of the process (such as the value of the products and coproducts), are those assumptions robust, or are they based on favorable levels of pricing of the products and inputs? 15. How will Iowa City be affected financially by shifts in the residual waste volume and mass? Is the contractual arrangement built with proper incentives to Fiberight for waste reduction and recycling? Forgive the naive question, but will Fiberight have to pay to put the residual waste in a landfill, or will Iowa City. 16. Who will be paying the transport cost to get waste to Marion, and to move the residual waste from Marion. Have economic forecasts of the process fully factored in the fuel, trucks, maintenance, and labor for this trucking? 17. If the process fails in some major way (not being able to accept as much waste as claimed, not generating as much product as claimed, not reducing the waste volume as much as claimed, delayed startup, additional capital investment required to get the plant working properly, difficulties with cold weather operation), what is the risk to Iowa City in each of these potential scenarios? Other 18. ** Is the identity of the $20 million in private investors known? Do they (and the core Fiberight team) have a history of positive business dealings, community involvement, return on investment, labor practices, technical innovation, and environmental compliance? 19. Are there any real or perceived financial conflicts of interest? Please contact me if I can be of any assistance. Sincerely, Charles Stanier 529 Brown St. Iowa City, IA Additional information Qualifications. I am an associate professor of chemical and biochemical engineering at the University of Iowa with 19 years experience industry and academia. I hold a Professional Engineering license (specialty environmental engineering) from the State of Maryland and I worked as an environmental engineer at International Paper for 5 years. As an environmental engineer at International Paper, I participated in internal audits of integrated manufacturing facilities around the country. I teach the course "Green Chemical and Energy Technologies ", where students learn how to quantitatively and qualitatively evaluate processes (such as conversion of trash to ethanol) in terms of sustainability. My research is in air pollution, climate and energy. I do not have direct research experience with biofuels, plant design, or solid waste. Motivation and background. I have no conflict of interest or financial stake (other than that of any Iowa City resident) in the outcome. I learned of Fiberight from a neighbor, and they encouraged me to look into it, as they thought it was being billed as "too good to be true." I reviewed the materials at http: / /fiberight.com/ and local newspaper articles, together with a short survey of the engineering research on the topic — and generated the findings and questions. My references are contained in the footnotes.l,z,s,a History of my involvement. An early list questions were shared via an emailed letter to Jim Throgmorton in January. That was shared with Rick Fosse. I was subsequently contacted by Mike Carberry, and then by Andy Ockenfels, who encouraged me to share the questions more broadly. However, the questions and opinions expressed in the letter are my own. They were generated without collaboration from outside parties. 1 http: / /www.afdc. energy. gov /fuels /ethanol_feedstocks.html; http://www.cert.ucr.edu/CeIIulosic`/`2OBiomass.pdf; http: / /www.pnl.gov /mai n/ publications /external /technical_reports /PN N L- 18144.pdf; Z Bozorgirad, M.A., et al. Environmental impact and cost assessment of incineration and ethanol production as municipal solid waste management strategies. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. (2013) 18:1502 -1512. 3 Chester, M. and Martin, E. Cellulosic Ethanol from Municipal Solid Waste: A Case Study of the Economic, Energy, and Greenhouse Gas Impacts in California. Environ. Sci. Technol. (2009) 43: 5183 -5189. 4 Life Cycle Assessment in Municipal Solid Waste Management. Konstadinos Abeliotis. in Integrated Waste Management — Volume I http: / /www.intechopen.com/ books / integrated - waste- management - volume -i 4e(4) Marian Karr From: Barbara Canin <barbcanin @g mail. com> Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2014 4:58 PM To: Council Subject: Riverfront Promenade as Part of Gateway Project Dear Councilors: I read the below letter from Iowa City resident Jennifer Wagner, and my husband and I agree wholeheartedly with her vision and aims. Whenever and wherever new construction happens in Iowa City, one goal that should be given the highest priority is making the city more bikeable, more walkable and more community - friendly, citizen - friendly, and family - friendly. An opportunity to do this as part of the Gateway project should not be squandered. Think, too, (as Jen mentioned) of the beautiful new Hancher building and how it faces the river and the university and is connected to it with abundant walkways and green space. To have a west side of Dubuque Street Riverfront promenade that could lead into this area from the north would enhance City Park, Hancher, and the entire entrance into our wonderful city. PLEASE consider deferring a vote on the right -turn lane off Dubuque Street and open up the idea of the promenade for further citizen and design input. This is critical to the City's future as a walkable, bikeable, liveable place. Thank you so much for your time. Sincerely, Barbara and Ethan Canin LETTER FROM JENNIFER SETER WAGNER: Dear Councilors: Please allow me to share one vision of how the Gateway project might proceed: an inclusion of an Iowa River Promenade. What could it entail? Alongside the 10 -foot "multi -use trail" - which is what Staff calls the sidewalk currently planned for the west side of Dubuque, please consider a 12- to 15 -foot promenade abutting the river - offering sweeping views of Hancher Auditorium, City Park, and the new Park Road through - arch bridge. The Iowa City Gateway project will provide a post card image of Iowa City; the Promenade will provide a platform for experiencing this beautiful setting. I am including some visuals of an amazing project in New York City's Midtown, along the East River, to help you envision the possibilities. But you will find inspiration from river cities around the world. The River Rhine Promenade and the Seine promenade in Paris, for instance - both cities revitalized areas where wide urban roadways formerly abutted the river. But a simple google image search of riverfront promenades will provide other very compelling examples. These projects capitalize on a fundamental truth: people are drawn to the river's edge. Our goal should be to make the experience next to this amazing section of riverfront as rich and enjoyable as possible, and to lessen the "sensory impact" of the motor vehicles on a major arterial. But our current plans appear to do just the opposite. The staffs moniker for a west -side sidewalk is a "multi -use trail" - which resembles our set -up on North Dodge. It is just a paved sidewalk to get from point A to point B, with very little benefit of aesthetics despite its riverfront location. I look at the renderings and see simply a generic circulation "function." There's no sense of place making form, despite the extraordinary potential. With a promenade we have the opportunity to create a unique space found nowhere else in Iowa City: think benches - and greenery - and classic lighting - and a broader sense of space to accommodate a new destination for Iowa Citians and visitors wanting to walk along the river, to meet friends, to pursue public art enrichment, to picnic during the warmer months and to watch the fireworks. Ultimately, such a vision would enlarge the quality of the public realm in Iowa City as an economic development tool, too. But this vision needs to take place NOW - not later in the design process, because the form needs to be part of the functional design at this point. How to achieve this goal? By deferring the vote on the right -turn lane from Dubuque Street to Park Bridge and to open up the idea of a promenade for further discussion and input. While some suggest the turn -lane will keep congestion at bay, that's not what those who study the relationship between transportation and land use will suggest. True: 25,000 vehicles travel North Dubuque every day. Approximately 740 vehicles want to turn west on Park Bridge for one hour at the peak of the weekday commute. But keep in mind the AVERAGE number of occupants in those vehicles? 1.1 persons. So rather than accommodate an entire city of folks who could gather and enjoy the picturesque views and to revitalize a really important piece of real estate in the heart of Iowa City, we would choose to accommodate the out -of -town driver who commutes to the City with 1.1 people in his /her vehicle? Please consider the Iowa River Promenade's wealth of benefits accruing to all its citizens. Compare these benefits with the benefit of reducing the inconvenience of a few minutes of traffic congestion for a commuter, a benefit that will prove to be short-lived since studies show the reduction in inconvenience will induce demand. Admittedly, this vision comes late in the process. Forgive that. Up to now we've been focused on achieving an acceptable elevation of Dubuque Street and maintaining a minimal environmental footprint in terms of saving the trees, and saving the bluffs, and keeping to a minimum the amount of fill this project will entail. Please spend just a moment looking at the attached visuals for inspiration. Please consider this once - in-a- lifetime opportunity to really impact the landscape in a positive and beautiful way. This vision could become a reality - IF we make it a goal at THIS point in the process. It can't happen later. Thank you for your time, Jennifer Seter Wagner Iowa City Marian Karr From: John Macatee <j rmacatee@g mail. com > Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2014 9:36 PM To: Council Subject: Please consider an Iowa River Promenade on the west side of Dubuque Street Dear Councilors: Please allow me to share one vision of how the Gateway project might proceed: an inclusion of an Iowa River Promenade. What could it entail? Alongside the 10 -foot "multi -use trail" - which is what Staff calls the sidewalk currently planned for the west side of Dubuque, please consider a 12- to 15 -foot promenade abutting the river - offering sweeping views of Hancher Auditorium, City Park, and the new Park Road through - arch bridge. The Iowa City Gateway project will provide a post card image of Iowa City; the Promenade will provide a platform for experiencing this beautiful setting. am including some visuals of an amazing project in New York City's Midtown, along the East River, to help you envision the possibilities. But you will find inspiration from river cities around the world. The River Rhine Promenade and the Seine promenade in Paris, for instance - both cities revitalized areas where wide urban roadways formerly abutted the river. But a simple google image search of riverfront promenades will provide other very compelling examples. These projects capitalize on a fundamental truth: people are drawn to the river's edge. Our goal should be to make the experience next to this amazing section of riverfront as rich and enjoyable as possible, and to lessen the "sensory impact" of the motor vehicles on a major arterial. But our current plans appear to do just the opposite. The staffs moniker for a west -side sidewalk is a "multi -use trail" - which resembles our set -up on North Dodge. It is just a paved sidewalk to get from point A to point B, with very little benefit of aesthetics despite its riverfront location. I look at the renderings and see simply a generic circulation "function." There's no sense of place making form, despite the extraordinary potential. With a promenade we have the opportunity to create a unique space found nowhere else in Iowa City: think benches - and greenery - and classic lighting - and a broader sense of space to accommodate a new destination for Iowa Citians and visitors wanting to walk along the river, to meet friends, to pursue public art enrichment, to picnic during the warmer months and to watch the fireworks. Ultimately, such a vision would enlarge the quality of the public realm in Iowa City as an economic development tool, too. But this vision needs to take place NOW - not later in the design process, because the form needs to be part of the functional design at this point. How to achieve this goal? By deferring the vote on the right -turn lane from Dubuque Street to Park Bridge and to open up the idea of a promenade for further discussion and input. While some suggest the turn -lane will keep congestion at bay, that's not what those who study the relationship between transportation and land use will suggest. True: 25,000 vehicles travel North Dubuque every day. Approximately 740 vehicles want to turn west on Park Bridge for one hour at the peak of the weekday commute. But keep in mind the AVERAGE number of occupants in those vehicles? 1.1 persons. So rather than accommodate an entire city of folks who could gather and enjoy the picturesque views and to revitalize a really important piece of real estate in the heart of Iowa City, we would choose to accommodate the out -of -town driver who commutes to the City with 1.1 people in his /her vehicle? Please consider the Iowa River Promenade's wealth of benefits accruing to all its citizens. Compare these benefits with the benefit of reducing the inconvenience of a few minutes of traffic congestion for a commuter, a benefit that will prove to be short-lived since studies show the reduction in inconvenience will induce demand. Admittedly, this vision comes late in the process. Forgive that. Up to now we've been focused on achieving an acceptable elevation of Dubuque Street and maintaining a minimal environmental footprint in terms of saving the trees, and saving the bluffs, and keeping to a minimum the amount of fill this project will entail. Please spend just a moment looking at the attached visuals for inspiration. Please consider this once - in-a- lifetime opportunity to really impact the landscape in a positive and beautiful way. This vision could become a reality - IF we make it a goal at THIS point in the process. It can't happen later. Thank you for your time, John Macatee and Jane Lyons 15 White Oak Place Iowa City 52245 l ax east riveniya Marian Karr From: Eric Gidal <eric.gidal5 @g mail. com> Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2014 5:08 PM To: Council Subject: Gateway Plans Dear City Council members, As you begin to review criteria for plans for the elevated Dubuque street, let me strongly encourage you to think of pedestrian needs and pleasures. Ideas concerning a possible "promenade" along the riverside which would do more than provide pedestrian throughfare, but allow for the enjoyment and maintenance of the riverside along the Dubuque St. side as an enjoyable extension of City Park and an aesthetically and recreationally advantageous are in its own right. This seems to me a fine idea and one that would help to mitigate the inevitable deterioration of that stretch of river that will accompany the proposed development. I encourage you to make pedestrian and recreational needs a priority. Yours sincerely, Eric Gidal 328 Brown Street Previously distributed in 4/3 information packet and Late handouts I 4e(5 Marian Karr From: Matt Hayek Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2014 4:43 PM To: 'Bill Hoeft' Cc: Council Subject: RE: PILOT agreement and related questions Councilman Hoeft, The "new details" refer to the Gazette's comparison of Coralville's PILOT agreement to PILOT agreements in Iowa and around the country. The requested information goes beyond what is contained in the two -page Coralville PILOT agreement and is not something our staff could just pull from your website. Please feel free to share our communication with Mayor Lundell. Regards, Matt Hayek From: Bill Hoeft [mailto:bhoeftl3 @gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2014 11:21 AM To: Matt Hayek Subject: RE: PILOT agreement and related questions Mayor, Thanks for getting back to me and for the perspective through your lenses. Thanks also for the explanation for the timing of your request. You mentioned "new details" in the Gazette story regarding the PILOT agreement. Is that new to the council because they hadn't seen the agreement? As far as I'm aware there haven't been any new details since the agreement has been in place. The lack of discussion at the time the agreement was created was in large part because much of it had to be in executive session as we were talking about the purchase of land. I understand that, when they can, our staffers assist each other with double checking policies for uniformity and consistency. Being neighbors, that makes perfect sense to me. In the interest of full disclosure, our staff didn't come to me complaining about this. A councilor had questions about Tom's request of information and how much time and effort would be expended by our staff. Kelly answered it and that is what triggered my email, as it certainly was shocking to hear how many people and how much time was /is being used. I must confess that I don't have a frame of reference for what the norm is for these kinds of inter - governmental requests, but on the surface it seems excessive when the agreements are readily available for your staff to peruse. Once again, thanks for the response and I'll pass it along to Mayor Lundell if that's okay with you. Warmest regards, Bill Hoeft On Apr 3, 2014 10:39 AM, "Matt Hayek" < Matt- Hayekkiowa -cit .org> wrote: Councilman Hoeft, I want to respond to your recent email to the Iowa City City Council regarding our staff's request for information related to Coralville's PILOT agreements with the University of Iowa. Without having discussed your email with my council, I can only offer my perspective. Following the Gazette report on March 16, members of the Iowa City City Council asked staff for more information on Coralville's PILOT and related agreements with the University, as well as PILOT agreements in other Iowa communities and around the country. Iowa City's PILOT agreement with the University has remained largely unchanged for decades. As we learned the details of the Coralville- University PILOT and related agreements, we noticed a remarkable difference in methodology. There is interest in determining whether Iowa City's arrangements should be examined and perhaps altered to reflect a different approach to valuation. Our intent is not to burden your staff and we appreciate the time dedicated to the request. The March 27 Gazette article indicated that your staff was receptive to answering questions. Our staffs routinely assist each other with research and information, and we regularly examine each other's policies and operations to ensure consistency. If the Coralville City Council feels the request is too cumbersome, please communicate that to me and I will pass it along. Your question regarding the timing of our interest is fair. When the agreement was approved there was very little public discussion and, to our knowledge, no media coverage. We became aware of the agreement well after it was approved, and the Gazette's reporting disclosed new details that resulted in the request for more information. Thanks for passing along the compliment from your family regarding our pedestrian mall. Regards, Matt Hayek From: Bill Hoeft [mailto:bhoeftl3kgmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2014 6:55 PM To: Matt Hayek; Kingsley Botchway; Rick Dobyns; Jim Throgmorton; Susan Mims; Terry Dickens; Michelle Payne Subject: PILOT agreement and related questions Dear Iowa City Mayor and Council, While I appreciate your interest in our PILOT agreement with the University of Iowa on the medical office building in the IRL, and certainly want to be neighborly; I am more than a bit concerned about the amount of time Tom's questions on the subject is costing our staff. At least four staff member have spent eight -hours and counting working on gathering this information taking them away from their affairs for the city. I'd guess Coralville residents wouldn't be too thrilled to hear this. It seems to me that most of these questions can be chased down by your staff. We attach the agreements to the corresponding item on the council agendas and they can be found on the city's website. On a personal note and to satisfy my own curiosity, I'm just wondering what prompted you to want this information now instead of when the agreement was voted on? I'd like to pass along a compliment given by my family members, who hadn't been to Iowa City in a while. They marveled at the improvements to the Pedestrian Mall. "Cool" was the term bantered about. Thanks in advance for any and all consideration of this subject. Warmest regards, Bill Hoeft Marian Karr From: Joseph M. Jason <jmj2400 @yahoo.com> Sent: Saturday, April 05, 2014 1:34 PM To: Council Subject: Criminalization of Asperger Syndrome Attachments: Washington Committee.doc IMPORTANT PUBIC COMMENTS Joseph M. Jason, President NAMI BA Board Member of Criminal Justice Advocacy for People with Mental Illness Member /Director of CURE (847)537 -3009 On Saturday, April 5, 2014 1:22 PM, Joseph M. Jason <jmj2400 @yahoo.com> wrote: Mr. Hargadine: I also wanted to share my criticism of your police department with you. 4e(6 Mr. Markus: I just wanted to give you information on the Criminalization of Asperger Syndrome in Iowa City. I watched the trial of my son. Your police department is also a large part of the problem in the Criminalization of Asperger Syndrome. They have been part of implementing cruel and unusual punishment on the autistic community. I have done radio interviews and been interviewed for new articles. Your police officers do not understand mental illness and Asperger Syndrome nor do they want to. I thought it was very interesting that Detective Hartman ignored me when I met with him. He was just typing and doing his work. Also he did not bother to watch Dr. Mills testify regarding Daniel's actions. He only listened to Dr. Gunter who did not have the cooperation of Daniel. This has been a shameful episode in Iowa City. My son could get 55 years for non - violent crimes. He never went to Iowa and never harmed anybody. Detective Hartman's deposition was filled with numerous factual inaccuracies. He looked all over for the whereabouts for Daniel. He contacted shelters and motels. He did everything, but call my house where Daniel was living. Joseph M. Jason CORMI National Alliance on Mental Illness 04/04/2014 To:Ms. Lina Perez Office of Autism Research Coordination National Institutes of Mental Health, NIH 6001 Executive Boulevard, NSC Room 6182A Rockville, MD 20852 Phone: 301 - 443 -6040 E -mail: IACCpublicinguiries 6i�mail.nih.gov t From: Joseph M. Jason- President of National Alliance on Mental Illness - Barrington Area and CURE Illinois Board Director My son with Asperger Syndrome has undergone cruel and unusual punishment in the State of Iowa by the state and federal government since March of 2007. He has been incarcerated with the exception of four months in jails and prisons for non- violent crimes. Please read the following information from my petition that follows. I have done a radio interview and had articles written in the paper about the grave injustice happening to my son due to his Asperger Syndrome. The crucifixion of Daniel S. Jason in Iowa City, Iowa Posted onSeptember 28, 2013 by iosephmiason Overzealous Prosecutors in Johnson County take care of the mentally ill problem by Joseph M. Jason - President NAMI BA Iowa prosecutors are intending to convict my son and send him to prison again for perhaps 55 years for non - violent crimes. The trial was going to commence October 22, 2013, but there had been a continuance. The trial took place on February 25, 2014 and lasted three days. The actions of the prosecution in Iowa City are indicative of the criminalization of Asperger Syndrome. My son was tried at this date for extortion and stalking. My son sent various emails and made two phone calls. These charges are a travesty. My wife and I met with the prosecutor in December of 2012 and explained Asperger Syndrome and mental illness. We explained that our son's behavior is childlike rather than criminal. We told them he needs treatment and not incarceration. We gave them a forensic psychiatrist's report that demonstrates he is not violent. He is a nuisance. We told them that his behavior according to Dr. Mills is typical of one with Asperger Syndrome. We told them he has an organic brain disorder. His criminal behavior consists only of phone calls and emails. This meeting has made no difference. If the Iowa prosecutor's office was serious about avoiding an expensive trial, they would have offered a humane plea agreement. Instead they offered an agreement of ten years. During the trial Dr. Mills testified that Daniel has no history of violence. In fact people with Asperger Syndrome are more likely to be bullied. Daniel did not have intent and is not a stalker. His actions are part of having Asperger Syndrome and not a suitor stalker. His actions were flawed and ambivalent. He did not want to contact his ex- girlfriend so he chose a flawed way. He had her phone number and did not call it. He was blowing off steam. Daniel cannot connect the dots. There is a disconnect between how we feel and how he feels. Daniel made reference to an embarrassing incident in the Johnson county auditor's office. This referred to an employee who defecated in their pants. He was given two counts of extortion for this by overzealous Johnson County prosecutors. Perhaps the voters of Iowa should be told how much it has cost to prosecute and imprison Daniel in Iowa. The typical offender sitting in Johnson County right now has been charged with robbery, theft, murder, sexual abuse, domestic abuse assault, drug offenses etc. My son is not a thug, but yet will get the stiffest sentence out of all of them. It is the criminalization of Asperger Syndrome. A full one -third of the nation's states get a D or F grade for using mental health courts and crisis intervention teams (CIT) — diversion programs proven to reduce the criminalization of mental illness, the study found. Iowa received a well deserved F. "People with untreated psychiatric disease should be getting the treatment they need before law enforcement shows up at their door because of behaviors caused by their illness," said Doris A. Fuller, executive director. I had a deposition earlier this year recently and they tried to twist Dr. Mills' report. They not only want to lock him away for 55 years, but they extended the time period of the stalking to include the time he has been in jail. That is punishment fit for a major drug dealer and /or murderer. This case, as it always has, cries out for treatment and not incarceration. I have found a place for my son to live. It is called Trinity in Illinois and it is an excellent place for people with issues similar to my son. That is where he belongs. Daniel was living with us for the entire time and did not go to Iowa. This has not stopped the charges of stalking and extortion. This is not what our founding fathers envisioned that America should be. Daniel has already been in jail and prisons for most of the time since 2007. Dr. Mills has stated that Daniels's so called criminal conduct is caused by his Asperger Syndrome. "Mr. Jason cannot legitimately be considered morally responsible for his misconduct." Dr. Mills also states that "The lack of significant history of violence is important." As stated in the article, Forensic aspects of Asperger's Syndrome by Justin B. Barry -Walsh and Paul E. Mullen in the Journal of Forensic Psychiatry & Psychology, "It behooves us to draw to the court's attention the obvious: that patients with Asperger's Syndrome suffer from mental disorder and that their offending and subsequent disposition must be placed in this context. The core features of Asperger's Syndrome and how they determine what the individual knows and understand of the world should form a basis for sophisticated assessment of the issues of disability." .NAMI National , Senator Durbin, and Senator Harkin have been apprised of this situation.. The Autism Society of America believes this to be the most egregious case in the United States. Even Drew Peterson and other murderers have received less of a sentence than my son is facing. Daniel has a brain disorder and needs mental health treatment not incarceration. National organizations such as NAMI and CURE are following this trial. This typifies everything that is wrong in the State of Iowa regarding the Criminalization of the Mentally Ill and Asperger Syndrome. This Criminalization of the Mentally ill must be confronted and stopped. I have seen and heard the overzealous prosecutors. It took courageous people to say no to slavery in our history. We must say no to the incarceration of our non - violent mentally ill. This is my mission in life. I have personally endorsed John Zimmerman for Johnson county Attorney. He gets it. Joseph M. Jason, President NAMI BA (847)537 -3009 Board Member of Criminal Justice Advocacy for People with Mental Illness Board Member CURE Illinois m . -; 1 -1986 p2 -13 -1986 2- -1985 01 -28 -1986 1` -1985 12 -16 -1985 0 -1985 11 -27 -1985 9 -1985 10 -21 -1985 8 -1985 09 -16 -1985 7 -1985 08 -26 -1985 7 -1985 08 -22 -1985 4 -1985 05 -10 -1985 1 -1985 02 -25 -1985 2- 198401 -28 -1985 2 -1984 01 -22 -1985 1032 C 0743 C 9966 C 9753 C 9101 C 8556 A 8281 C 8257 C 6680 C 5326 C 4958 C 4869 C 121 detail lines printed "*') v 0 � 37.00 923993 S T T ENTERPRIS hpvdA 151.50 923993 S T T ENTERPRIS hpvdA 48.80 I 923293 FLUOR CONSTRUCT hpvdA 4e(7) 4.25 292384 RF BOLIN, LEE & AS hpvdA 99.50 184071 BEVEN- HERRON IN hpvdAI 80.00 266677 HUSSMANN -LOS AN hvdAIG 14.00 433176 KIEWIT INFRASTR hpvdAI 106.00 176982 DUKE PACIFIC IN hpvdAI 15.00 247770 BRUTOCO ENG & C hpvdAI 28.00 321187 NOVO - RADOS -NOVO hpvdAI 40.00 452159 MIGUEL CONSTRUC hpvdAI 88.00 321187 NOVO - RADOS -NOVO hpvdAI C c Av�'� S--'— I 6 U-) c rt 6 wt C c CA,, �a i Ales Y }� P &A Cc4 ^,, (-.e- c' /ill. /f-'i L � t- 5 4A V O- ect 6 6-m CAA, W C o Q,, L Sj 7uQ UYVI "A co tq Iq Ij c 4 G LLJ .. '- -j it 00 %.00atw.40' Z.-� a ` 4 aA-L, (( 'a�- :,e wa"t IC4 e h fq- d e stg-yPD c��ea0-4 -1989 6997 C 47.00 199902 CONCO CEMENT CO hpvdAIGCE ggg 10-18 09 -28 -1989 6791 C 60.50 418058 SANCHEZ &HERNAND hpvdAIGCE ;_1989 09 -1989 6668 C 16.00 245757 MC CORMICK CONS hpAICE _1989 -20 09 -1989 6668 C 16.00 245757 MC CORMICK CONS -1989 -20 08 -1989 6395 C 25.50 402223 CONCRETE FORM C hpvdAIGCE - 1989 ' -28 08 -1989 6385 C 69.50 556474 PECK -FAGER ASSO hpvdAIGCE -1989 -28 07 -1989 6041 C 72.00 483624 CURD, ANDREW T hpvdAIGCE -1989 -25 06 -1989 5768 C 24.00 294623 KETTERING & KRU hpvdAIGCE ;_1989 -27 06 -26 -1989 5742 C 22.50 474035 TIERRA INDUSTRI hpvdAIGCE -1989 06 -26 -1989 5675 C 36.50 311107 WHITING- TURNER hpvdAIGCE -1989 05 -15 -1989 5251 C 136.00 217025 STRAUSS CONST C hpvdAIGCE -1989 -1989 04 -17 -1989 4907 C 96.00 217025 STRAUSS CONST C hpvdAIGCE : -1989 03 -27 -1989 4693 C 7.00 287486 MAR CEMENT C hpvdAIGCE -1989 02 -10 -1989 4127 C 62.50 186124 PENTACO INC hpvdAIGCE -1988 01 -11 -1989 3702 C 180.00 186124 PENTACO INC hpvdAIGCE -1988 12 -12 -1988 3262 C 145.00 186124 PENTACO INC hpvdAIGCE 1 -1988 11 -14 -1988 2784 C 191.50 186124 PENTACO INC hpvdAIGCE -1988 10 -20 -1988 2385 C 50.00. 433176 KIEWIT INFRASTR hpvdAICE , -1988 09 -29 -1988 2010 C 117.00 433176 KIEWIT INFRASTR hpvdAICE ' -1988 08 -25 -1988 1303 C 63.00 137170 RC JOB, R E CEMENT hpdA ' -1988 08- 19- 1988 01065 C Q 48.00 259619 MACCO CONSTRUCT hpvdAICE > -1988 07 -27 -1988 0703 C 151.00 137170 RC JOB, R E CEMENT hpdA i -1988 07 -19 -1988 0549 C 8.00 259619 MACCO CONSTRUCT hpvdAICE i -1988 07 -28 -1988 0747 C 32.00 321736 BENSON ENGINEER hpvdAGCE i -1988 06 -20 -1988 0109 C 32.00 259619 MACCO CONSTRUCT hpvdACE � -1988 05 -27 -1988 9793 C 28.50 88526 RC BEN F SMITH INC hpdARCE 3 -1988 04 -28 -1988 9218 C 52.00 B 150386 PW DRAVO -PLANT DIV hpvdA ? -1988 04 -28 -1988 08819 C G -8.00 B 150386 PW DRAVO -PLANT DIV IC ? -1988 03 -29 -1988 8819 C 8.00 B 150386 PW DRAVO -PLANT DIV hpvdAIC ? -1988 03 -24 -1988 8749 C 24.00 571 CECO CORPORATIO hpdACE 1 -1988 02 -24 -1988 8283 C 157.00 287337 PW NEWBERG, GUST K hpvdAIC ? -1987 02 -12 -1988 8161 C 40.00 B 459544 JONES, J A INTE hpdAGCE ? -1987 01 -26 -1988 6967 C 28.00 427576 CON -BARR CONSTR hpdAGCE 1 -1987 12 -31 -1987 6636 C 30.00 A 480584 G K N KWIKFORM hpdA 1 -1987 12 -28 -1987 6544 C 14.50 427576 CON -BARR CONSTR hpdAGCE ) -1987 11 -19 -1987 6022 C 24.00 150386 PW DRAVO CORP -PLAN hpvdA ) -1987 10 -29 -1987 5682 C 139.00 478534 K B H CONSTRUCT hpdAGCE 3 -1987 02 -07 -1989 4094 C K 178.50 478534 K B H CONSTRUCT„ 3 -1987 09 -29 -1987 5141 A 178.50 478534 K B H CONSaZUCT-4'�dAGCE 7 -1987 02 -07 -1989 4094 C K 130.00 478534 K B H CONS*WCT -a,p 7 -1987 5 -1987 08 -25 -1987 06 -25 -1987 4518 3510 A C 130.00 60.00 478534 474035 K B H CON3CT�dAG TIERRA INQS;TRIj hpd��E 3 -1987 06 -23 -1987 3491 C 92.50 99031 MILLIE & R §ohpckGCE 1 -1987 1 05 -20 -1987 05 -14 -1987 2879 2803 C A 16.00 40.00 496666 246498 CONSTRUCTI SPbhp CE PARRISH, C3f hd E -1987 CONSTRUCrON S hp CE 3 -1987 04 -16 -1987 2323 C 80.00 496666 2 -1987 03 -18 -1987 1653 C 24.00 B 150386 DRAVO CORP -PLPP hpvdA 1 -1987 02 -18 -1987 1218 C 32.00 B 150386 DRAVO CORP -PLAN hpvdA 1 -1987 02 -17 -1987 1200 C 15.00 828 ATKINSON, GUY F hpvdAI 2 -1986 01 -27 -1987 0848 C 24.00 341878 CON - STRUCT hpvdAI 2 -1986 01 -16 -1987 0678 C 16.00 467817 S T T ENTERPRIS hpdAGCE 2 -1986 01 -14 -1987 0602 C 62.50 B 150386 DRAVO CORP -PLAN hpvdA 1 -1986 12 -22 -1986 0138 C 64.00 433176 KIEWIT INFRASTR hpvdAI 3-1986 12 -03 -1986 5847 C 146.00 433176 KIEWIT INFRASTR hpvdAI 9 -1986 10 -22 -1986 5169 C 181.50 433176 KIEWIT INFRASTR hpvdAI B -1986 09 -19 -1986 4632 C 128.00 433176 KIEWIT INFRASTR hpvdAI 7 -1986 08 -20 -1986 4168 C 92.00 467817 S T T ENTERPRIS hpvdAIG 6 -1986 07 -21 -1986 3688 C 14.00 184071 BEVEN - HERRON IN hpvdAI 6 -1986 07 -18 -1986 3666 C 47.00 466190 PANKOW, CHARLES hpvdAIG 2 -1986 03 -14 -1986 1548 C 46.00 923993 S T T ENTERPRIS hpvdAIG (T 03 -28 -2014 Option: EED �gDD02 mpIyee Detail Unaudited record. Corrections may invalidate this information _ -.Warning: BOKASSA, JERRY L Beg W/M 01 -1901 End W/M 12 -9999 F/C 1BR: 000090239 0409 Dek:Y CLIC:Y PAC(NM):N Dues:Y 08 -19 -1983 Jnion: Batch R D Hours ER # R/C ER Name ,•used /NOT USD dk Mo Dep Date MIN -4m )8 -1993 09 -14 -1993 1664 C 15.00 24.00 88 302008 GRIFFITH :L BALL & BAE2L<& a hpy.6AICE hp IGCE )7-1993 08-19-1993 1534 C C 8.00 331359 C C MYERC hp AIGCE )5 -1993 )7 -1992 06 -14 -1993 11 -13 -1992 1115 09471 C Q 11.00 265974 BRINDERS(IN Ot h IGCE ICE )7 -1992 08 -27 -1992 9512 C 10.00 433176 KIEWIT I0 S� BRINDERS( CON , h )6 hp dAIGCE )6 -1992 11 -13 -1992 09471 9471 C C G -11.00 11.00 265974 265974 BRINDERSON COP hpVdAIGC -1992 11 -1991 08 -25 -1992 12 -17 -1991 6861 C 48.00 259619 MACCO CONSTRUCT hpvdAIGCE 10 -1991 11 -27 -1991 6703 C 24.00 433176 KIEWIT INFRASTR hpvdAICE )9 -1991 10 -23 -1991 6301 C 80.50 475188 MITCHELL PAC CO hpvdAICE )8 -1991 11 -18 -1991 6566 C B 12.00 427576 CON -BARR CONSTR vd )8 -1991 10 -29 -1991 6395 C B 12.00 427576 CON -BARR CONSTR hnAIGCE )6 -1991 07 -31 -1991 5356 C 24.00 275501 TRI STATE CONST hpvdA )5 -1991 06 -25 -1991 4033 C 5.00 369630 A F R CONST INC hpvdAIGCE )5 -1991 06 -14 -1991 3904 C 33.00 331024 AMOROSO, S J CO hpvdAIGCE )5 -1991 06 -10 -1991 3836 C 32.00 300045 RICHTER & RATNE hpvdAIGCE )4 -1991 05 -23 -1991 3685 C 106.00 140069 SKANSKA USA CIV hpvdAICE )3 -1991 04 -29 -1991 3363 C 8.00 561313 MACRO -Z- TECHNOL hpvdAIGCE 31 -1991 02 -26 -1991 2687 C 56.00 413788 HY -SERCO INC hpvdAIGCE 12 -1990 01 -28 -1991 2354 C 80.00 413788 HY -SERCO INC hpvdAIGCE 11 -1990 12 -18 -1990 1937 C 39.00 413788 HY -SERCO INC hpvdAIGCE 10 -1990 11 -20 -1990 1649 C 160.50 259619 MACCO CONSTRUCT hpvdAIGCE D9 -1990 10 -17 -1990 1240 C 147.00 259619 MACCO CONSTRUCT hpvdAICE 08 -1990 09 -27 -1990 1044 C 56.00 514700 D S P CONSTRUCT hpvdAIGCE 08 -1990 09 -17 -1990 0875 C 40.00 259619 MACCO CONSTRUCT hpvdAICE 07 -1990 08 -28 -1990 0705 C 24.00 265974 BRINDERSON CORP hpvdAIGCE 07 -1990 08 -23 -1990 0639 C 41.00 426630 MC CARTHY hpvdAICE 06 -1990 07 -23 -1990 0240 C 50.00 393533 REY CON CONSTR hpvdAIGCE 06 -1990 07 -17 -1990 0152 C 8.00 74888 STOLTE INC hpvdAICE 05 -1990 11 -08 -1990 1498 C 39.50 312149 EQUINOX hpvdAICE 05 -1990 06 -15 -1990 9774 C 40.00 920670 DEPT OF WATER & hpvd 05 -1990 06 -12 -1990 9718 C 40.00 245906 HENSEL- PHELPS C hpvdAICE 04 -1990 05 -07 -1992 8342 C G 24.50 312149 EQUINOX vd 04 -1990 11 -08 -1990 1498 C 24.50 312149 EQUINOX hpvdAICE 02 -1990 03 -19 -1990 8732 C 32.00 74888 STOLTE INC hpvdAICE 01 -1990 02 -22 -1990 8430 C 106.00 351630 SURE FORMING SY hpvdAIGCE 12 -1989 01 -26 -1990 8124 C 68.50 503900 TUTOR - SALIBA CO hpvdAICE 12 -1989 01 -25 -1990 8092 C 8.00 433176 KIEWIT INFRASTR hpvdAICE 11 -1989 12 -29 -1989 7786 C 49.00 433176 KIEWIT INFRASTR hpvdAICE 11 -1989 12 -29 -1989 7786 C 32.00 433176 KIEWIT INFRASTR hpvdAICE 11 -1989 12 -27 -1989 7719 C 48.00 426538 TUTOR - SALIBA CO hpvdAICE 11 -1989 12 -20 -1989 7656 C 32.00 136365 MERCO CONSTR EN hpvdAIGCE 10 -1989 03 -20 -1990 07330 C G 1.00 331024 AMOROSO, S J CO IGCE 10 -1989 12 -20 -1989 7656 C 106.50 136365 MERCO CONSTR EN hpvdAIGCE 10 -1989 11 -16 -1989 7330 C 1.00 331024 AMOROSO, S J CO hpvdA 9 -989 09 -30 -1991 6056 C K 4.50 266677 HUSSMANN -LOS AN vdAIGCE 89.02 -25 -1991 2674 C K 4.50 266677 HUSSMANN -LOS AN hp +� 10. -11 -1990 07039 C Q 36.00 331024 AMOROSO, S J CO hpvdAIGCE 1,3 -1989 07065 C Q 33.00 266677 HUSSMANN -LOS AN hpvdAIGCE Ti Marian Karr From: Joseph M. Jason <jmj2400 @yahoo.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 08, 2014 11:05 PM To: Council Cc: jyyness @co.johnson.ia.us Subject: President of National Alliance on Mental Illness BA calls for resignation of Rod Sullivan - Johnson County Supervisor Attachments: Sullivan.docx SEE ATTACHED LETTER - NOTIFICATION TO JOHNSON COUNTY PROSECUTOR Associated Press April 8, 2014 President of National Alliance on Mental Illness BA calls for resignation of Rod Sullivan - Johnson County Supervisor News Release People of Johnson County. Today I am calling for the resignation of Johnson County Supervisor Rod Sullivan. 0 My son was recently tried in Johnson County for non - violent crimes. The overzealous prosecutors per my petition are trying to give him 55 years. Please see my petition. http: / /www. change. org /petitions /Janet- lyness- county- attorney johnson- county- daniel -s Jason- should -get- treatment - instead -of- incarceration- the - criminalization -of- asperger- syndrome- must -end Your Johnson County Supervisor is going around on Facebook and claiming people have not heard both sides and that my son will kill his ex- girlfriend. During the trial Dr. Mills testified that Daniel has no history of violence. In fact people with Asperger Syndrome are more likely to be bullied. Daniel did not have intent and is not a stalker. His actions are part of having Asperger Syndrome and not a suitor stalker. His actions were flawed and ambivalent. He did not want to contact his ex- girlfriend so he chose a flawed way. He had her phone number and did not call it. He was blowing off steam. Daniel cannot connect the dots. There is a disconnect between how we feel and how he feels. Daniel made reference to an embarrassing incident in the Johnson county auditor's office. This referred to an employee who defecated in their pants. He was given two counts of extortion for this by overzealous Johnson County prosecutors. Daniel did not go to Iowa and lived with his parents in Illinois. Mr. Sullivan is not an expert in Asperger Syndrome or mental illness. To my knowledge, he did not attend my son's trial and did not hear any of Daniel's testimony or the forensic psychiatrist Dr. Mills speak. According to mental health reporting: 1: The vast majority of people with mental illness are not violent. Here is what researchers say about the link between mental illness and violence: - "Although studies suggest a link between mental illnesses and violence, the contribution of people with mental illnesses to overall rates of violence is small, and further, the magnitude of the relationship is greatly exaggerated in the minds of the general population (Institute of Medicine, 2006)." - "...the vast majority of people who are violent do not suffer from mental illnesses (American Psychiatric Association, 1994)." - "The absolute risk of violence among the mentally ill as a group is very small... only a small proportion of the violence in our society can be attributed to persons who are mentally ill (Mulvey, 1994)." - "People with psychiatric disabilities are far more likely to be victims than perpetrators of violent crime (Appleby, et al., 2001). People with severe mental illnesses, schizophrenia, bipolar disorder or psychosis, are 2 % times more likely to be attacked, raped or mugged than the general population (Hiday, et al.,1999)." Mr. Sullivan must resign or be replaced for his irresponsible comments that offend and stigmatize those with autism and mental illness. In addition, he was attempting to influence the verdict. Joseph M. Jason, President NAMI BA Board Member of Criminal Justice Advocacy for People with Mental Illness Member /Director of CURE(Citizens United for Rehabilitation of Errants) (847)537 -3009 Exhibit A o Is this the type of person that we want in our jail in Johnson County? Janet Lyness County Attorney Johnson County Daniel S Jason should get treatment instead of incarceration The criminalization of Asperger Syndrome must end. - Sign the Petition! Harry just signed this petition on Change.org. 331 signatures are still needed! Top of Form Bottom of Form Top of Form 1. 121Sign the Petition • Share o Julie VanDyke likes this. 0 Janelle Rettig Yes, actually. The victim of the stalking and threats was a County employee and many staff are testifying, including County Auditor Travis Weipert. There is a lot more to the story than the father's story. February 28 at 6:38am Harry Olmstead Ok, but is stalking a reason to hold anybody in jail since 2007? What happen to a speedy trial? Must we hold person's with mental illness in jail and not place them somewhere where they can receive proper supervision and treatment for their illness? February 28 at 7:05am • 1 Janelle Rettig Harry your facts are wrong. He has not been in jail since 2007 for this one case. The young woman has rights also. February 28 at 8:51am - Edited H_Qy Olmstead Is he mentally ill? If so why is he in jail and not in a place that treats mental illness? I'm not saying or suggesting that the girl doesn't have rights as well. Yet we fill up our jails with people who are mentally ill and not find alternatives for them that will help with their mental illness. That's one of the reason you are asking the voters for another 50 beds. February 28 at 9:30am • 1 Rod Sullivan He's going to kill her. So what do you suggest? February 28 at 12:4512m Harry Olmstead Isn't it better to get him out of Iowa City and into a facility in IL like his parents have offered? February 28 at 2:20pm • 1 Rod Sullivan It is easy to get a flyer that gives one side only and jump to the conclusion that everything in it is factual and correct, with no omissions. I would suggest that people who really care about this issue attempt to get the whole story. There is a life at stake. February 28 at 2:31pm HaMy Olmstead Are you saying Rod that the parents of this man haven't found him a place in IL that is for persons with autism? February 28 at 2:40pm • 1 Rod Sullivan I'm sure they did "find him a place ", whatever that means. I'm saying the case is much more complex than is laid out there. February 28 at 2:42pm 7anelle Rettig The person who is the victim is not a "girl ", she is an adult woman. It is troubling that you call her a girl and him a man. We shouldn't believe everything we read on the internet. Sometimes these are complex situations that when told by one side victimizes the victim all over. February 28 at 5:21pm Harry Olmstead Excuse me "the woman ", I had not intended to be offensive and apologize. February 28 at 5:48pm • 2 Harry Olmstead Neither of you have answered my question as to weather or not this man is mentally impaired or ill. February 28 at 6:11pmm - 1 Rod Sullivan I'm not his psychiatrist. I just know there are two sides to the story. February 28 at 10:50pm Janelle Rettia I wouldn't know, Harry. All I know is the woman and her loved ones are changed forever and they are very afraid. There should be no tolerance for violence, stalking, and threats. Violence against women is a serious crime and I hope more people take it seriously and stop minimizing the harm. February 28 at 11:09om Nancy Ostroanai My son has it too. As far as I know, there is no treatment. At least there wasn't15 years ago. People with Asperger's Syndrome are non - violent. However they are more likely to get caught because they don't understand visual /social cues. I would question the motivation to lock up a non - violent criminal rather than giving him an anklet. Is this so you can build a bigger jail? March 1 at 9:41am • 1 Rod Sullivan Well, Nancy, if after knowing me for 25 years you think that is my motivation, there is clearly nothing I can do to change your mind. You got it - we are all evil. Throw the bums out. March 1 at 9:47am Janelle Rettig I wish you wouldn't dismiss the harm to the victim and her loved ones. How could you possibly know that this person is non - violent? From a petition? There is simply a lot more to the story than what you read, but I guess you know something else? Did you attend the trial last week and hear first hand information? I don't think anyone that has been involved thinks this is a victimless non - violent nuisance situation, but I guess you have no trust. For that I am deeply sorry. March 1 at 10:05am Nancy Ostroanai Frankly, I would be more prone to say,'Throw the bums out," in relation to the seats cas. Eespecially with a supervisor saying that the decision came about because the county was upset with the city over the animal center.About this case, I admit that I know little except that people with Aspergers seem very strange and are non - violent March 1 at 11:46am • I Mary Burke harry, why does it matter /what is the difference between mentally impaired or ill? as a career mental health professional, i don't see any difference. i also know that the laws are such that if its mental health treatment, it does not protect victims- -there is no public accounting of him so that his victims can know if he's released, where he lives, etc. and as a mental health professional, 1 can tell you from the scar i have that those with asperger's can and do become violent, just no more often than the general public. i know absolutely nothing about the case, i just see people reacting to about one fact among what is clearly hundreds, and acting on emotion and not on facts- -which is the advantage that the justice system is supposed to have over us as individuals. March 1 at 12:48om Julie VanDyke I did go to the trial and listen to the young woman's testimony. The young man is mentally ill and has a diagnosis which we know a great deal more about these days. Based on what I know about Asperger's, and the people I have known in my life with that diagnosis at his level of it, it is a simple FACT that he will be mentally "tortured" if he is placed amongst the general prison population without his diagnosis taken into consideration in where, how, and to what he is sentenced. Nobody, not even his father, is saying he should be released. But placing someone who is not able to react "properly" or even read "social cues" in the general prison population IS cruel and unusual punishment. It is not the same as sending someone who is able to perceive and react well enough to social cues to adequately survive with same general prison population to long -term incarceration. None of you above mention that he's not just up for what one would hope and expect for a stalking sentence.... no, the county attorney is asking that he be placed in what amounts to a situation of torture for someone with his mental disorder FOR 55 YEARS. 55 YEARS!!! There ARE murderers who aren't sent away for 55 years, there are child rapers that aren't sent away for 55 years! There are many people who have actually committed, not just spoken about thoughts of unforgivably disturbing crimes that county prosecutors don't seek to have condemned to the kind of torture he would receive at the hands of fellow prisoners, and has already been subjected to by other inmates in prison for 5 years regarding this same case, for 55 years!!! Should he be out on the streets free or in the custody of his parents? NO! Does he need to be in a place where he is locked in 24/7 for a long time and receiving appropriate medical treatment for his condition? YES. Does she deserve to live a life without him contacting or coming into contact with her intentionally in any way, YES! But he has a mental condition that does not allow him to stop or control his "hyper- focus" on her, in fact, hyper -focus on specific "areas of interest' is one of the primary symptoms of his diagnosis. I don't think he will be able stop himself from stalking this woman at any time in the foreseeable future based on his consistent behavior pattern of trying to contact her through every means within his reach. But though he may "LOOK" totally "NORMAL" to "YOU ", and therefore "YOU" may want him sentenced to the same punishment as someone without his diagnosis, I would like you to have the decency to think this over from other points of view just as I would expect the judge to, before sentencing him to 55 years in prison, (particularly since so many of you feel you have all of the information to justify judging him yourselves to prison for 55 years) than just the one point of view that pulls your heartstrings the most for one of the two people in this very sad ongoing situation. Because this young man, regardless of his disturbed thoughts and unacceptable behavior towards her, is NOT a murderer. He has not committed murder nor should he be sentenced as if he had because we fear that he "MIGHT'. Nor does he deserve to be tortured, which is exactly what putting someone with his particular disability, and level of it, in with the general prison population already has done to him now for the last 5+ years. We DO also have laws against cruel and unusual punishment = torture. The rest of the details of the case, I'm not going to pretend either one of these young people has acted wisely ... and yes, I did see her testimony last week ... AND I DIDN'T SEE ANY OF YOU THERE DURING IT! I don't know a great deal about stalking law, though I'm learning about it in response to someones recent threats towards me, but I know enough to laugh at anybody who says restraining orders are effective. Restraining orders don't stop stalkers, rapists, or murderers; in fact they often appear to accelerate the threat level to the very women they are Joseph M. Jason, President NAMI BA Board Member of Criminal Justice Advocacy for People with Mental Illness Member/Director of CURE (847)537 -3009 c)nfimi National Alliance on Mental Illness Associated Press April 8, 2014 Barrington Area President of National Alliance on Mental Illness BA calls for resignation of Rod Sullivan - Johnson County Supervisor News Release People of Johnson County. Today I am calling for the resignation of Johnson County Supervisor Rod Sullivan. My son was recently tried in Johnson County for non - violent crimes. The overzealous prosecutors per my petition are trying to give him 55 years. Please see my petition. http: / /www. change .org /petitionsljanet- lyness- county- attorney - johnson- county- daniel -s- jason- should -get- treatment - instead -of- incarceration- the- criminalization -of- asperger- syndrome- must -end Your Johnson County Supervisor is going around on Facebook and claiming people have not heard both sides and that my son will kill his ex- girlfriend. During the trial Dr. Mills testified that Daniel has no history of violence. In fact people with Asperger Syndrome are more likely to be bullied. Daniel did not have intent and is not a stalker. His actions are part of having Asperger Syndrome and not a suitor stalker. His actions were flawed and ambivalent. He did not want to contact his ex- girlfriend so he chose a flawed way. He had her phone number and did not call it. He was blowing off steam. Daniel cannot connect the dots. There is a disconnect between how we feel and how he feels. Daniel made reference to an embarrassing incident in the Johnson county auditor's office. This referred to an employee who defecated in their pants. He was given two counts of extortion for this by overzealous Johnson County prosecutors. Daniel did not go to Iowa and lived with his parents in Illinois. Mr. Sullivan is not an expert in Asperger Syndrome or mental illness. To my knowledge, he did not attend my son's trial and did not hear any of Daniel's testimony or the forensic psychiatrist Dr. Mills speak. According to mental health reporting: 1: The vast majority of people with mental illness are not violent. Here is what researchers say about the link between mental illness and violence: - "Although studies suggest a link between mental illnesses and violence, the contribution of people with mental illnesses to overall rates of violence is small, and further, the magnitude of the relationship is greatly exaggerated in the minds of the general population (Institute of Medicine, 2006)." - "...the vast majority of people who are violent do not suffer from mental illnesses (American Psychiatric Association, 1994)." - "The absolute risk of violence among the mentally ill as a group is very small... only a small proportion of the violence in our society can be attributed to persons who are mentally ill (Mulvey, 1994)." - "People with psychiatric disabilities are far more likely to be victims than perpetrators of violent crime (Appleby, et al., 2001). People with severe mental illnesses, schizophrenia, bipolar disorder or psychosis, are 2 V2 times more likely to be attacked, raped or mugged than the general population (Hiday, et a1.,1999)." Mr. Sullivan must resign or be replaced for his irresponsible comments that offend and stigmatize those with autism and mental illness. In addition, he was attempting to influence the verdict. Joseph M. Jason, President NAMI BA Board Member of Criminal Justice Advocacy for People with Mental Illness Member /Director of CURE(Citizens United for Rehabilitation of Errants) (847)537 -3009 Exhibit A o Is this the type of person that we want in our jail in Johnson County? Janet Lyness, County Attorney - Johnson County: Daniel S. Jason should get treatment instead of incarceration. The criminalization of Asperger Syndrome must end. - Sign the Petition! Harry just signed this petition on Change.org. 331 signatures are still needed! 2. 121Sian the Petition , Share o Julie VanDvke likes this. Janelle Rettig Yes, actually. The victim of the stalking and threats was a County employee and many staff are testifying, including County Auditor Travis Weipert. There is a lot more to the story than the father's story. February 28 at 6:38am 0 Harry Olmstead Ok, but is stalking a reason to hold anybody in jail since 2007? What happen to a speedy trial? Must we hold person's with mental illness in jail and not place them somewhere where they can receive proper supervision and treatment for their illness? FebruaFebrua 2E 1 0 Janelle Rettig Harry your facts are wrong. He has not been in jail since 2007 for this one case. The young woman has rights also. February 28 at 8,51arn , Edited 0 Harry Olmstead Is he mentally ill? If so why is he in jail and not in a place that treats mental illness? I'm not saying or suggesting that the girl doesn't have rights as well. Yet we fill up our jails with people who are mentally III and not rind alternatives for them that will help with their mental illness. That's one of the reason you are asking the voters for another 50 beds. FebruaFebrua 2 1 0 Rod Sullivan He's going to kill her. So what do you suggest? February 2 0 Harry Olmstead Isn't it better to get him out of Iowa City and into a facility in IL like his parents have offered? February 2 1 0 Rod Sullivan It is easy to get a flyer that gives one side only and jump to the conclusion that everything in it is factual and correct, with no omissions. I would suggest that people who really care about this issue attempt to get the whole story. There is a life at stake. February 28 at 2:31Dm 0 Harry Olmstead Are you saying Rod that the parents of this man haven't found him a place in IL that is for persons with autism? February 2 1 0 Rod Sullivan I'm sure they did "find him a place ", whatever that means. I'm saying the case is much more complex than is laid out there. FebruaFebrua 28 at 2:42Dm 0 Janelle Rettig The person who is the victim is not a "girl ", she is an adult woman. It is troubling that you call her a girl and him a man. We shouldn't believe everything we read on the internet. Sometimes these are complex situations that when told by one side victimizes the victim all over. February 28 at 5,21pm 0 Harry Olmstead Excuse me "the woman ", I had not intended to be offensive and apologize. February 2 2 0 Harry Olmstead Neither of you have answered my question as to weather or not this man is mentally impaired or ill. February 2 1 0 Rod Sullivan I'm not his psychiatrist. I just know there are two sides to the story. February 2 0 Janelle Rettig I wouldn't know, Harry. All I know is the woman and her loved ones are changed forever and they are very afraid. There should be no tolerance for violence, stalking, and threats. Violence against women is a serious crime and I hope more people take it seriously and stop minimizing the harm. February 28 at 1109vm 0 Nancy Ostrognai My son has it too. As far as I know, there is no treatment. At least there wasn't15 years ago. People with Asperger's Syndrome are non - violent. However they are more likely to get caught because they don't understand visual /social cues. I would question the motivation to lock up a non - violent criminal rather than giving him an anklet. Is this so you can build a bigger jail? March 1 at 9:41am , 1 0 Rod Sullivan Well, Nancy, if after knowing me for 25 years you think that is my motivation, there is clearly nothing I can do to change your mind. You got it - we are all evil. Throw the bums out. March 1 at 9:47am o Janelle Rettig I wish you wouldn't dismiss the harm to the victim and her loved ones. How could you possibly know that this person is non - violent? From a petition? There is simply a lot more to the story than what you read, but I guess you know something else? Did you attend the trial last week and hear first hand information? I don't think anyone that has been involved thinks this is a victimless non - violent nuisance situation, but I guess you have no trust. For that I am deeply sorry. March 1 at 10:05am o Nancy Ostrognai Frankly, I would be more prone to say,"Throw the bums out," in relation to the seats cas. Eespecially with a supervisor saying that the decision came about because the county was upset with the city over the animal center.About this case, I admit that I know little except that people with Aspergers seem very strange and are non - violent March 1 at 11:46am • 1 o Mary Burke harry, why does it matter /what is the difference between mentally impaired or ill? as a career mental health professional, ! don't see any difference. ! also know that the laws are such that if it's mental health treatment, it does not protect victims- -there is no public accounting of him so that his victims can know if he's released, where he lives, etc. and as a mental health professional, ! can tell you from the scar ! have that those with asperger's can and do become violent, just no more often than the general public. ! know absolutely nothing about the case, ! just see people reacting to about one fact among what is clearly hundreds, and acting on emotion and not on facts- -which is the advantage that the justice system is supposed to have over us as individuals. March l at 12:48DM 0 Julie VanDvke I did go to the trial and listen to the young woman's testimony. The young man is mentally ill and has a diagnosis which we know a great deal more about these days. Based on what I know about Asperger's, and the people I have known in my life with that diagnosis at his level of it, it is a simple FACT that he will be mentally "tortured" if he is placed amongst the general prison population without his diagnosis taken into consideration in where, how, and to what he is sentenced. Nobody, not even his father, is saying he should be released. But placing someone who is not able to react "properly" or even read "social cues" in the general prison population IS cruel and unusual punishment. It is not the same as sending someone who is able to perceive and react well enough to social cues to adequately survive with same general prison population to long -term incarceration. None of you above mention that he's not just up for what one would hope and expect for a stalking sentence .... no, the county attorney is asking that he be placed in what amounts to a situation of torture for someone with his mental disorder FOR 55 YEARS. 55 YEARS!!! There ARE murderers who aren't sent away for 55 years, there are child rapers that aren't sent away for 55 years! There are many people who have actually committed, not just spoken about thoughts of unforgivably disturbing crimes that county prosecutors don't seek to have condemned to the kind of torture he would receive at the hands of fellow prisoners, and has already been subjected to by other inmates in prison for 5 years regarding this same case, for 55 years!!! Should he be out on the streets free or in the custody of his parents? NO! Does he need to be in a place where he is locked in 24/7 for a long time and receiving appropriate medical treatment for his condition? YES. Does she deserve to live a life without him contacting or coming into contact with her intentionally in any way, YES! But he has a mental condition that does not allow him to stop or control his "hyper- focus" on her, In fact, hyper -focus on specific "areas of interest" is one of the primary symptoms of his diagnosis. I don't think he will be able stop himself from stalking this woman at any time in the foreseeable future based on his consistent behavior pattern of trying to contact her through every means within his reach. But though he may "LOOK" totally "NORMAL" to "YOU ", and therefore "YOU" may want him sentenced to the same punishment as someone without his diagnosis, I would like you to have the decency to think this over from other points of view just as I would expect the judge to, before sentencing him to 55 years in prison, (particularly since so many of you feel you have all of the information to justify judging him yourselves to prison for 55 years) than just the one point of view that pulls your heartstrings the most for one of the two people in this very sad ongoing situation. Because this young man, regardless of his disturbed thoughts and unacceptable behavior towards her, is NOT a murderer. He has not committed murder nor should he be sentenced as if he had because we fear that he "MIGHT'. Nor does he deserve to be tortured, which is exactly what putting someone with his particular disability, and level of it, in with the general prison population already has done to him now for the last 5+ years. We DO also have laws against cruel and unusual punishment = torture. The rest of the details of the case, I'm not going to pretend either one of these young people has acted wisely ... and yes, I did see her testimony last week ... AND I DIDN'T SEE ANY OF YOU THERE DURING IT! I don't know a great deal about stalking law, though I'm learning about it In response to someones recent threats towards me, but I know enough to laugh at anybody who says restraining orders are effective. Restraining orders don't stop stalkers, rapists, or murderers; in fact they often appear to accelerate the threat level to the very women they are r -- - CITY OF IOWA CITY 4e(9) MEMORANDUM Date: April 3rd, 2015 To: City Clerk From: Darian Nagle -Gamm, Traffic Engineering Planner Re: Item for April 15th, 2014 City Council meeting; Installation of NO PARKING ANY TIME signs on the west side of Dartmouth Street. As directed by Title 9, Chapter 1, Section 3B of the City Code, this is to advise the City Council of the following action: Action: Pursuant to Section 9- 1- 3A(10), Install NO PARKING ANY TIME signs on the west side of Dartmouth Street. Comment: This action is being taken as the City received a petition from a group of residents on Dartmouth Street concerned about traffic congestion caused by vehicles parked on both sides of the road. The neighborhood was formally surveyed and 84% of responding households wish to have parking removed on the west side of the street. The survey response rate was 81%. Parking would remain available on the east side of the street. ' r , , -to CITY OF IOWA CITY 04-15-14 . , RANDUM MEMO Date: April 3rd, 2014 To: City Clerk From: Darian Nagle -Gamm, Traffic Engineering Planner Re: Item for the April 15th, 2014 City Council meeting; Installation of 22 on- street metered parking spaces and establishment of parking meter terms on the 500 block of East Washington Street. As directed by Title 9, Chapter 1, Section 3B of the City Code, this is to advise the City Council of the following action Action: Pursuant to Section 9 -1 -3A (17), Establish 12 parking meters on the south side of the 500 block of East Washington Street: W501 E, W503E, W505E, W507E, W509E, W511 E, W513E, W515E, W517E, W519E, W521 E, and W523E. Establish 10 parking meters on the north side of the 500 block of East Washington Street: W500E, W502E, W504E, W506E, W508E, W510E, W512E, W514E, W516E, and W518E. These meters will each have a 2 -hour term at the rate of $0.75 per hour. Comment: This action is being taken to provide metered short-term on- street parking on the 500 block of East Washington Street. 4 ,-, (I I) Marian Karr From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Dear City Council, Amy Pretorius <amy @pniowacity.com> Friday, April 11, 2014 3:45 PM Council Peninsula Restaurant/Wine Bar OSA Letter to Council Addressing OSA.pdf Please see my attached letter. Sincerely, Amy Pretorius Assistant Project Manager Peninsula Development (319)- 887 -1000 amy((iDpniowacjty.com Peninsula Development Co., LLC City Council members, My name is Amy Pretorius of 670 Walker Circle in Iowa City. I also work for the Peninsula Development Company located at 1188 Foster Road in the Peninsula Neighborhood subdivision. Recently we have broken ground on our much anticipated "commercial' building. It was hoped that this building would be host to neighborhood amenities such as a restaurant, coffee shop, grocery and more and I am happy to say two Individual proprietors have announced that a restaurant and coffee shop will be amongst the businesses going in. Our subdivision is unique in its mix use of properties, the flexibility to have commercial uses in a residential zone. The lot that will host the restaurant and coffee shop, lot 117, is classified as live /work and is surrounded by a majority of Rowhouses, Apartment Houses, and Multi -Unit Buildings. All of these properties also have the flexibility now and in the future to have commercial use on their ground floor (retail, personal service, offices, adult or child care, bed and breakfast, etc...). Per the code, lot 117 is the only lot that would allow food and beverage service but only by Special Exception. I am happy to say on April 9`h special exception was granted to both uses by the Board of Adjustments and partially because of the overwhelming community support. In regards to the restaurant, during this process it has come to our attention that the outdoor service of alcohol (OSA) was prohibited in residential zones by a code written in 1978. Because this restaurant (the size of Devotay) is small and somewhat isolated its business plan requires an owner that is more interested In the pride of owning his /her own business than making large sums of money. This restaurant includes some fantastic outdoor seating that will be crucial to spring and summer sales. There is a brick courtyard where many residents have often talked about eating some food and drinking a glass of wine on a beautiful day. It is our fear, my company and the owner, as well as the professional commercial real estate agent, that many patrons will simply decide to go elsewhere when finding out about the OSA. This has huge potential to hurt this small fragile business, before it has even started, which is why we understand there is a chance we may lose this fantastic owner and likely other potential owners as well. When pursuing this issue with multiple departments in the City of Iowa City I came to the understanding the code stated OSA was prohibited with 100 feet of residential zones. What I ask is this; Can leniency be shown on lot 117, that is technically zoned residential but the property overlay and specific Peninsula code suggests the lot has commercial use? Can the residential units that exist within 100 feet of the proposed OSA area be given a chance to express their views on this issue? I suggest the restaurant be given a chance to prove its commitment to being neighborly and preserving the peace in the community. Perhaps this can be done in the form of a 6 month trial period (starting with the first warm months following its completion). After the trial period the HOA could be given power to monitor the OSA associated with this business to encourage good behavior and conformity long after the trial period was over. 1188 Foster a • Iowa City, IA 52245 -1586 Phone: 319.887.1000 • Fax:319.887.1005 www.ThePeninsulaNeighborhood.com Marian Karr From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments Please See Attached Jason Deppe <jason.deppe @g mail. com> Tuesday, April 15, 2014 12:38 PM Council Penninsula OSA Support Peninsula Resident - Lot 57.docx Dear Esteemed Council Members, My name is Jason Deppe of 2285 Willenbrock Circle. I am one of four owners of a shared rowhome building in the Peninsula Neighborhood that is within 100 feet of the future restaurant and wine bar. I have been informed that legislation is currently in place that forbids the outdoor service of alcohol within 100 feet of a residential zone, such as my building. As a resident and owner in the Peninsula Neighborhood, I see the restaurant and the lot on which it sits as a commercial unit. I am in favor of the restaurant and wine bar being located so close to my home, I also favor the outdoor service of alcohol. I believe that it will be an integral piece of the neighborhood for years to come. I have been looking forward to having a restaurant within easy walking distance of my home since I first began looking at owning a home in the Peninsula. I consider myself a restaurant professional as I have been in the service industry for over ten years. I understand this restaurant may not be viable without this consideration, and if I was the owner I too would be leery of investing my life into a restaurant that may not have all of the tools to succeed. Having a centrally located area that offers the convenience of a restaurant will bring a new "life" to the neighborhood. The residents of the Peninsula enjoy being outdoors. An outdoor serving area that allows residents a convenient area to congregate during the warm summer months will only help to tie the community together. To lose this business would be tragic for the community and I am writing you in hopes you will offer this business a chance. I understand the code prohibiting this OSA was approved in order to have a separation between residents the noise potentially created by an outdoor service area. However, I believe that this restaurant is only viable with the support of residents. If you are worried about the current owners within a certain distance, please, let us have our thoughts heard. If this is simply something that has not been allowed in over 35 years and you are unsure of the outcome, perhaps allow a trial period. Please let me know if there is anything else I can do, I would be happy to help. Sincerely, Jason Deppe �1 I Fo �o 0 0 AR F-� x p w 0 N O N f7 tri p O AN C� N . N . 0 - rn� ` V ` J � O O C!1 0 C) "t N. �o n, cn O can f0 t►1. N f7 tri p O AN C� N . N . 0 - rn� ` V ` J � O O C!1 0 C) "t 01 14 -14 Prepared by: Simon Andrew, Administrative Analyst, 410 E. Washington St., Iowa City, IA 52240 (319) 356 -5010 RESOLUTION NO, 14 -12 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ADDITIONAL FINANCIAL SUPPORT OF THE 1105 PROJECT WHEREAS, the Iowa City City Council seeks to encourage collaboration between social service agencies that fosters sustainable service delivery models, reduces the duplication of services, and supports inclusive programming; and, WHEREAS, the Iowa City City Council recognizes the 1105 Project as such a collaboration; and, WHEREAS, the City of Iowa City has contributed approximately $288,000 toward the 1105 Project, in the form of Community Development Block Grant funds; and, WHEREAS, the 1105 Project has raised approximately $950,000 toward a $1.25 million goal and must raise approximately $300,000 more to fully fund the project; and, WHEREAS, the 1105 Project obtained a private loan to finance the remainder of the project and interest payments on said loan divert resources from service delivery; and, WHEREAS, the agencies participating in the 1105 Project have requested additional City funds in the amount of $100,000 to be disbursed in five annual $20,000 installments; and, WHEREAS, pledging these funds as a Challenge Grant predicated on additional fundraising in the amount of $200,000 will incentivize the full funding of the project. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF IOWA CITY, IOWA THAT: The City Manager is authorized to disburse funds for the 1105 Project consistent with the terms set forth in the Memorandum from Asha Adhikari, Management Intern, dated January 9, 2014 regarding the Challenge Grant for 1105 Project, a copy of which is attached. Passed and approved this 14th day of January 2014. ATTEST: J CITY CLERK MAYOR Approved by �� '/ - 5 ,f� City Attorney's Office Resolution No. 14 -12 Page 2 It was moved by ThroQmorton and seconded by Dickens the Resolution be adopted, and upon roll call there were: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: x Botchway x Dickens g Dobyns x Hayek x Mims g Payne g Throgmorton CITY OF IOWA CITY M E M 0 RA N D U M Date: January 9, 2014 To: Tom Markus, City Manager From: Asha Adhikari, Management Intern Re: Challenge Grant for 1105 Project Introduction: 1105 Project created a collaborative campus which houses the Crisis Center of Johnson County, Domestic Violence Intervention Program, Free Lunch Program, and the National Alliance on Mental Illness of Johnson County with common shared spaces. This project presents a unique opportunity to facilitate crucial social services through much needed collaboration among organizations delivering corresponding services. The participating agencies provide relief and support services to the low- income population of the City which helps the City to be more inclusive of residents from various social and economic backgrounds. The collaboration of these agencies in sharing the space and related resources through this project enables them to serve their clientele more effectively and efficiently. Such collaborative efforts demonstrated by the 1105 project directly conform to the strategic plan priorities adopted by the City Council for Sustainability and Inclusivity. Therefore, staff recommends that Council support the pledge of $100,000 in the form of a Challenge Grant paid in five annual $20,000 installments towards the 1105 Project for their debt payments incurred during the building improvements and renovations. 1105 Project: The 1105 project met some very crucial needs of the participating organizations. The Free Lunch Program which serves more than 40,000 free meals per year needed a new home by January 1, the Domestic Violence Intervention Program needed office space in a public -yet- secure location, and the Crisis Center of Johnson County needed additional parking and training space. The project also includes the National Alliance on Mental Illness which increases the opportunities of all 1105 clients to receive mental health support. The agencies are anticipating 45,000 requests for assistance each year with a significant number of services delivered to the residents of Iowa City. Along with the services provided by these agencies, the use of commercial kitchen on the site, which is FDA approved, can be extended to other organizations in the community in search of such a facility. Council has recognized the importance of consolidating such services and has awarded $288,000 from Community Development Block Grants towards the 1105 project. Other stakeholders along with Iowa City have also contributed towards the collaboration's efforts, most notably Johnson County's sale of the building for $1. However, the project raised $950,000 towards the $1.2 million project with a shortfall of $300,000. The shortfall is currently secured through a private loan but the loan and interest payments divert resources that could otherwise be used in the provision of services. The agencies are very appreciative of the financial assistance provided by the City so far and are requesting a $100,000 contribution from the City of Iowa City to leverage the remaining $200,000 from other sources to complete the project. January 9, 2014 Page 2 The Challenge Grant: The $100,000 Challenge Grant is recommended to be disbursed at $20,000 per year for five years, with a condition that the agencies will have to raise the remaining balance of $200,000 within the three months from the City issuing a formal pledge. In addition, any amount less than $200,000 would be reduced proportionately from the City's share of the contribution. For instance, if the agencies were short by $100 in reaching the $200,000 mark, the City's contribution will be reduced by $50 from the total grant. Furthermore, the grant contribution will be contingent upon proper documentations submitted to the City that validates the total amount secured through fundraising. K MEMO / FAX Community We are pleased to report to you that from the above noted matching Bart Floyd Foundation DATE: April 15, 2014 of Johnson County TO: Tom Markus, City Manager, until this morning. Sarah Maiers City of Iowa City Executive Director In addition, we are processing 8 corporate/business /municipality or Michael L. Stoffregen FROM: Mike Staffreg€n, Executive DirectaT Nancy Richardson Community Foundation of Johnson County President 319.337.0483 Tim Krumm cash/checks /pledges is $204,321.76. Greg Turner Board of Directors: SUBJECT: Donations/Pledges to the 1105 Project from Steve Weeber Thank you for the opportunity to work with you and the City of Iowa City January 14, 2014 to April 14, 2014 proposed matching Steve Atkins Mary Westbrook timeframe. Betsy Boyd Chuck Coulter Good Afternoon Tom... Maggic Elliott We are pleased to report to you that from the above noted matching Bart Floyd timeframe, we received cash/checks in the amount of $88,716.76 from 209 Pat Harney donors throughout Iowa City, Coralville and Johnson County, which includes a -$5000 dollar check postmarked April 1 fth , but not received Michael Heinrich until this morning. Sarah Maiers Sharon Oglesby In addition, we are processing 8 corporate/business /municipality or individual pledge(s) representing a total of $115,605.00 which we Dean Price received during this matching timeframe. Nancy Richardson John Schneider We certify that the total amount raised through the Community Foundation of Johnson County from January 14, 2014 to April 14, 2014 in Chuck Skaugstad, Jr. cash/checks /pledges is $204,321.76. Greg Turner Anne Vandenberg We are attaching the numeric details to this memo. Steve Weeber Thank you for the opportunity to work with you and the City of Iowa City Joe Wegman in securing your matching grant amount of $100,000. It truly represents Mary Westbrook an investment in our community. Nancy Williams To serve Johnson County by growing endowments and distributing funds to build a greater community. 325 E. Washington St. • Iowa City • IA 52240 • te1319 . 337 0483 . fax 319 • 338 9958 www. communityfoundationofj ohnsoncounty. org United Way of Johnson & Washington Counties 1150 5`h Street, Suite 290 Coralville, IA 52241 tel 319- 338 -7823 fax 319 - 339 -7337 www.unitedwayjwc.org MEMORANDUM To: Tom Markus, City Manager, City of Iowa City From: Carol Rowland, Pledge Services Coordinator Date: April 14, 2014 Re: United Way of Johnson & Washington Counties Donor Designations from Jan. 14 — April 14, 2014 For the 1105 Project Capital Campaign Attached please find detailed donor information (by account number only) for the designations received from January 14 — April 14, 2014 for the 1105 Project Capital Campaign. Total gross pledges and gifts received during this timeframe were $16,894.29, from 52 individuals or couples, and 3 companies or organizations. This information is being submitted as part of the City's Challenge Grant for the 1105 Project, authorized by the Iowa City City Council. Please let me know if you have any questions or need any further information. Thank you for your generous support of this important shared facility collaboration to more effectively address food insecurity, mental illness and domestic abuse needs in our community. Give. Advocate. Volunteer. LIVE UNITED. TO: Tom Markus, City Manager, City of Iowa City FROM: Matt Hartz, General Manager, New Pioneer Co -op RE: 1105 Project DATE: April 14, 2014 The New Pioneer Board of Directors declared a patronage dividend to co -op owners this prior fiscal year and mailed several thousand checks. The Board has a tradition of recommending a local non - profit that co -op members can donate their dividend check to if they wish. The co -op administrative staff aggregates the donated checks on behalf of members and subsequently provides them to the designated non - profit. This year the Board recommended the 1105 Project, particularly in light of the City's Challenge Grant. As of the date of this letter, $11,978.97 in checks have been collected by our staff for the 1105 Project Capital Campaign. Sincerely, Matt Hartz 22 S. Van Buren St. 6 Iowa City, IA 522401 (319) 338-9441 • no, 2nd St. 0 Coralville, IA 52241 • (319) 158-SS13 www.newpi.com