HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-05-2021 Climate Action CommissionIowa City Climate Action Commission Agenda
Monday, April 5, 2021, 3:30 — 5:00 p.m
Electronic Meeting, Zoom Platform
Electronic Meeting
(Pursuant to Iowa Code section 21.8)
An electronic meeting is being held because a meeting in person is
impossible or impractical due to concerns for the health and safety of
Commission members, staff and the public presented by COVID-19.
You can participate in the meeting and can comment on an agenda
item by going to https:Hzoom.us/meeting/register/tJUgde6ugz4g
Gd3L4YFLULOMslzBS4xUol ah/ . via the Internet to visit the Zoom
meeting's registration page and submit the required information.
Once approved, you will receive an email message with a link to join
the meeting. If you are asked for a meeting or webinar ID, enter the
ID number found in the email. A meeting password may also be
included in the email. Enter the password when prompted.
If you have no computer or smartphone, or a computer without a
microphone, you may call in by telephone by dialing (312) 626-6799.
When prompted, enter the meeting or webinar ID. The ID number for
this meeting is: 917 2765 50390
Once connected, you may dial *9 to "raise your hand," letting the
meeting host know you would like to speak. Providing comments in
person is not an option.
Meeting Agenda:
1. Call to Order
2. Roll Call
3. Approval of March 1, 2021 minutes
4. Public Comment of items not on the Agenda
-Commentators shall address the Commission for no more than 3 minutes. Commissioners shall
not engage in discussion with the public concerning said items.
5. Staff Announcements
a. Action items from last meeting
b. Climate Action and Outreach updates (see attachment)
6. Old Business:
a. Review draft letter to the City Council on the Methane Feasibility Study
7. New Business:
a. Updates on working groups (see reports in agenda packet)
i. Buildings (Krieger, Soglin, Grimm)
ii. Outreach (Krieger, Fraser, Holbrook, Bradley)
iii. Equity (Tate, Hutchinson)
iv. Adaptation (Bradley, Leckband, Giannakouros)
8. Recap of actionable items for commission, working groups, and staff
9. Adjourn
If you will need disability -related accommodations in order to participate in this meeting, please contact
Sarah Gardner, Climate Action Engagement Specialist, at 319-887-6162 or at Sarah-pardner@iowa-
cityorq. Early requests are strongly encouraged to allow sufficient time to meet your access needs.
MINUTES
PRELIMINARY
IOWA CITY CLIMATE ACTION COMMISSION MARCH 1, 2021
— 3:30 PM — FORMAL MEETING
El ectrroni c M eeti ng
(Pu rsu a n t to to wo Co de se ctio n 21.8)
An electronic meeting is being held because a meeting in person is impossible
or impractical due to concerns for the health and safety of Commission
members, staff and the public presented by C0 1 D-19.
ELECTRONIC MEETING
MEMBERS PRESENT: Madeleine Bradley, Stratis Giannakouros, Ben Grimm, Kasey
Hutchinson, John Fraser, Matt Krieger, Jesse Leckband, Becky
Soglin
MEMBERS ABSENT: Megan Hill, Grace Holbrook, Eric Tate
STAFF PRESENT: Sarah Gardner, Ashley Monroe, Joe Welter
OTHERS PRESENT: Ayman Sharif
CALL TO ORDER:
Fraser called the meeting to order.
APPROVAL OF FEBRUARY 1, 2021 MINUTES:
Krieger moved to approve the minutes from February 1, 2021.
Leckband seconded the motion, a vote was taken, and the motion passed 8-0.
PUBLIC COMMENT OF ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA:
Ayman Sharif stated he graduated from the University of Iowa recently and is a climate action
activist. He is trying as much as he can to make climate action work the best in Iowa City. He
commented on the Climate Action Plan and the Accelerated Actions "100 Day Report," noting
those documents are very important guiding documents and are at the core of the climate action
in the future. When he investigated those documents, he noticed that they are not stressing the
importance of the population as he felt it should be. He stated the documents, especially the
100 Day Report, stressed the importance of the contribution of the community but that it is not
Climate Action Commission
March 11 2021
Page 2 of 11
proportionate to how the documents represent statistics, like the emissions themselves. The
documents had language that the largest contributors statistically, for example, are industrial
and commercial properties. But emissions related to residential, transportation, and waste
sources, add up to 39%--just like a majority. Sharif stated that shows the population is the most
important player, and the documents should clearly and explicitly point to the population as the
main contributor to the planning and implementation of climate action in several areas,
especially the stakeholder initiative statement, which is the opening line. Sharif stated because
this is what we feel as a population, we should do this with climate action planning.
STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS:
Action Items from last meeting: Gardner stated there were several action items from last
meeting. The first was to add Jen Jordan to the previous minutes, which Gardner did. The
second was to reach out to Giannakouros regarding the reorganization of the working groups.
She confirmed she sent him that email and updated the list in this month's agenda to reflect the
new working group configurations. Third, she sent the link to the presentation that took place on
February 25 to all of the Commission members. Additionally, that presentation was also
recorded; Gardner said she would enter a link to that recording into the minutes
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v: ZavooLuY4CU) in case anyone was not able to attend and
would like to go back and watch it. Gardner also asked the Chamber if Climate Action
Commission members could attend the energy efficiency presentation that Wendy Ford and
Gardner coordinated through them; unfortunately, that presentation was for Chamber members
only, but a link has since gone up of the recording of that as well, and Gardner will enter that
into these minutes too (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v: Y8nygWnGims). Also, Gardner
included the methane feasibility discussion as an agenda item for this month, and a reminder of
the date by which working groups need to get their minutes to her if they would like them
included in the work in the packet for next month. If a working group would like to have their
minutes included in next month's agenda packet, they should have those minutes to her by
March 29. Finally, Frazier asked for all Commission members to do a deep review of the HDR
materials that were included in last month's packet and in this month's packet in order to be
prepared for the discussion.
Updated Action Plan report: Monroe noted that while the Commission received the updated
Action Plan in their packet, they haven't posted it the website yet based on feedback from
Commission members. Monroe explained in prior meetings there was a request to make it a bit
easier to read for working groups and for Commission members to determine what was being
asked of them, or simpler to identify the work happening. Staff has now created it in a landscape
format and added a column specific to Commission notes for the working groups or Commission
in general. Monroe hopes that will improve the ability for all to navigate through the document.
Monroe stated they are continuing to make progress in a variety of areas and are identifying
areas where the Commission has opportunity to really be active in how to approach specific
projects or issues. They included thoughts from staff in the progress report, and as they have
additional conversations during Commission meetings, staff will update each of those project
areas based on what was discussed to do. Some of the items are asking for specific feedback
so that staff can work on those projects. For example, some items ask Commission members to
provide examples of other programs that they'd like to see emulated in Iowa City, or give
feedback on recent events that were held that are related to climate action activities and how to
2
Climate Action Commission
March 11 2021
Page 3 of 11
improve for next year.
Krieger said there were maybe a couple items in which it seems like they're making progress.
However, he was unsure if they've been addressed yet within the working groups, so it might be
good to get an update at an upcoming working group meeting on a couple of those. One in
particular might be the rehab program, or the net zero project — it may have been addressed
with outreach, but not with buildings.
Monroe stated she can answer quickly on the update for the rehab project. The City, as part of
the South District Homeownership Program, acquired a duplex property that had experienced a
fire, and since it was down to the studs it gave the City a unique opportunity to make significant
rehabilitation to one of the units and moderate changes to the other. They were able to put in
updates such as energy efficient appliances and other elements. The City is looking at it as a
chance to present different options for anybody in Iowa City to be able to make at differing
levels. The City also hopes to capture some data from the project. Staff have the ability to pull
energy bill data from prior housing rehabilitation projects in that same area and match that with
some of these energy efficiency improvements that were made to those properties. They are
trying with this new project to go as far as they can to make them close to net zero, or as deeply
energy efficient as possible --at least on the one side, and then have the mid -range kind of work
on the other. The other net zero project, the public housing project, is still in the works. They're
discussing what locations are most suitable for doing a deep rehab on any one of the public
housing projects, and that's going to take a little bit of time to figure out.
Monroe noted this is the type of conversation she is trying to pair up with the Commission notes
and provide that input. The Commission notes can be forward looking, as things develop and as
projects occur and staff is looking to the Commission for additional feedback. But the notes can
also be opinions or feedback that would help for future projects.
OLD BUSINESS:
Continued Discussion of the Methane Feasibility Study: Monroe wanted to provide
guidance for conversation. She noted they have had opportunities to hear from the consultant
group and City staff, (Joe Welter was on the call this afternoon as well to provide any guidance
or input), but she has not made a comment based on staff's position from the study. The initial
Climate Action Plan asked for recommendations from a methane feasibility study. The recent
report stepped into that zone and completed a study for methane feasibility at two locations,
wastewater and landfill. HDR did a thorough job of analyzing this work, and showed that the
investment that is needed to do this type of project is significant. It is a long-term project and
investment. The financing itself would take years to set up and the City may need to look to
outside partners and develop those types of relationships in order to even entertain making that
kind of investment. Having the study has been very good because it allows for them to prioritize
what actions are out there and what is possible. There are various projects that the City can do
but that might take a 15 to 30-year payback. There are some things make sense to do and
undertake even if they do not get that payback. There are certain obligations that a community
must undergo to do those things, especially when it comes to infrastructure. Monroe stated the
dollar amount for this project is costly. To put it in perspective, the City's capital improvements
plan for the entire year total around $10 million for roads, streets, and water, infrastructure,
wastewater, etc. — meaning the financing for the methane projects would be a lot just in
comparison. The City plans for years in advance, and so that's why she was just trying to
3
Climate Action Commission
March 11 2021
Page 4 of 11
illustrate the difference in what the scale is. Finally, she noted the Commission can make any
choices that they deem appropriate. If through their discussions there was something they
wanted to move forward with, then they can see what the next steps are to do so. However, if
they were to say, "this is not something that we want to approach at the moment, but stick it in
your back pocket and continue to look for opportunities," that is okay as well. The investment in
this study was good, so they would learn what the choices are.
Fraser acknowledged that feedback was very helpful. He noted that in the minutes Monroe had
stated that the Commission is the first line of consideration and technical expertise that can help
guide the City in planning for, waiting on, or proposing alternatives and options to the methane
initiatives. He questioned if he has the technical expertise that can help guide the City as he is
not an engineer or a scientist. But there are some smart people on the Commission that do
have that expertise. He also noted it is interesting that she made the comments about the
Climate Action and Adaptation Plan, which has lots of choices and alternatives relative to
prioritization of where the City wants to invest in the future, to get the biggest return on
investment (ROI), and attain the overall goals of the plan (net zero, the reduced carbon
footprint, etc.). So, $19 million in grant money with a 30-year ROI is putting the City in a position
where they have got to hit all the marks and be exactly on time at the right time — and maybe
not discover for some time that they really had not just three or four choices related to this, but
other choices. Fraser said maybe putting it in their back pocket and waiting for some evidence
that would justify this sort of investment is the best decision, but again felt he is not smart
enough to make that decision, so would like to hear from others on the Commission.
Krieger agreed that it's a very expensive venture and said that there are lots of other priorities
that he thought are worth financing. When he looked through the report in detail, the options that
were more cost effective or had better return from a financial perspective were also the options
that the City was not necessarily getting to claim those reductions. So, from a greenhouse gas
emissions perspective, while they might be making an actual impact, the credits for those
reductions are going on the market and not being captured by the City. On paper they are not
reducing emissions for Iowa City. This study was needed to help evaluate and understand what
is needed in order to do one of these projects, but he was not sure that at this point it has
garnered his support.
Fraser also noted they are not restricted to three or four choices, Monroe said there are other
choices that they have with how they want to invest $19 million; there other ways that might
have a higher chance of ROI with less risk.
Krieger agreed, and stated that back when they were developing the plan, one of the things that
they looked at was the potential impact of all those different original actions. The potential
impact on those actions was focused in other areas; it wasn't focused on this area. Putting
financial and personnel resources into a campaign across the community to get homeowners
and business owners to make changes in their daily lives seemed like a better use of funding
from his perspective. And on the actual reductions on emissions and where they occur —
reducing consumption, reducing the way they consume, the way that they approach buildings
and infrastructure — from that seemed like there were other items of greater potential impact
across the community.
Giannakouros agreed and said that it is really valuable to have this study to understand the
options, because otherwise there'd always be this blank space where they don't know and can't
4
Climate Action Commission
March 11 2021
Page 5 of 11
quantify that opportunity. Now they have information that allows them to benchmark against
other activities and against the possible performance of getting rid of organics, getting them out
of the waste stream, basically. One thing he said he thinks about a lot is the curbside yellow bin
for food scraps to get composted; maybe it is as simple as getting more people to utilize this
service the City offers. If stuff is composted it will reduce a lot of methane emissions, and it
doesn't require a lot of capital investment to divert organics out of the waste stream this way. Its
yard clippings, food scraps, and a lot of stuff that gets quickly to the landfill and then composted,
so there's got to be methane savings there. If the City could increase the rates of food scrap
diversion and other organics diversion, they could even go from the 1500 tons they get now up
to that 7500 tons that will be required for that low diversion scenario to make sense. That's
something he would like to target now and then revisit if they had a huge capacity of organics
coming in. Giannakouros reiterated the study has been great, and they should use it to
benchmark other priorities that they have going forward.
Welter noted the 1500 tons and the 7500 tons have nothing to do with organics at the landfill,
that was the capacity of the wastewater treatment plant digesters. There's only 1500 tons of
organic space available in the current wastewater digester. The 7500 tons was a goal that they
set that would be achievable without changing much of their day-to-day operations in the City,
but it would require more digestive capacity as the 1500 is the only available capacity that the
wastewater treatment plant has currently.
Giannakouros asked about the potential organics at the landfill right now that's currently going
into cells at the landfill, and what's happening with the organics diverted right now. Welter stated
the whole idea over organics diversion is that this would be organics that they're already taking
into other programs; they're not offsetting necessarily more organics. The organics that are
going into people's waste into their trash is going into the landfill. If someone is diverting the
organics and putting it into a bin, it is going into the City's composting operations.
Giannakouros asked what the carbon gain would be if in theory it's being composted. If it's
already being separated by Iowa City people who use the landfill waste services, then if they
moved it from landfill compost to the wastewater treatment plant, they're not necessarily
increasing much in terms of mesogenic potential avoidance. Welter noted that organics put in
the yellow bins for composting has a methane output to it, as composting generates methane
gas as well. Because they're collecting the methane off the landfill through pipes, the digester
gas is collected and that's currently being burned. Methane gas burns cleaner and it's less of an
air pollutant when burned than when it's just vented naturally.
Giannakouros agreed, but if they change that up and took those organics and diverted them to
the wastewater treatment plant, do they still flare it from the wastewater treatment plant? Welter
said no, in that case what they would be doing is either combining that with a system where
they'd be generating electricity, or they would be putting it into the pipeline so that gas wouldn't
be being burned at the wastewater treatment plant. Welter noted that idea goes to
Giannakouros' comments that they can't claim the credits at those facilities because the local
pipeline system would have the gas in it being burned by everybody in the community, but
somebody in California or some another state in another program might be buying those credits
from us and taking those credits.
Giannakouros stated he was not clear on that. He thought they were trying to increase the actual
organics diversion to meet potential capital build at the wastewater treatment plant, but they
5
Climate Action Commission
March 11 2021
Page 6 of 11
might already have that out there. Welter stated they already have some existing capacity in the
current digester, and that was the 1500 tons. The 7500 tons comes from a goal that the
consultant and City staff worked out without really changing a lot of what they do. So instead of
taking those organics from the bin at the curbside and taking them to landfill, now they're going
to take them to the wastewater treatment plant instead. If they really wanted to get more
organics out of the community, that would be much more than the 7500 tons. Also, part of it is
diverting them from the landfill --which is the highest generator of methane gas in the
community-- and taking them to the wastewater treatment plant instead where they can have
them in a much more controlled digestion process. While they will still get gas, it's a much more
controlled process.
Gardner asked a clarifying question about this scenario: are they proposing to take the material
that is currently going into the composting program and divert it over to the wastewater
treatment plants so that composting goes away and now they're treating it in a different way? Or
would this be something that would be done in addition to the composting, trying to pull out
more organic material that's going to the landfill instead of composting and send that additional
material to the digester? Welter said the food waste would end up at the wastewater treatment
plant, and yard clippings and things like that would end up in composting. Or, if they were
combined, they would probably end up at the wastewater treatment plant and that scenario
would definitely be a higher diversion scenario and take some of the composting away. Welter
noted one of the things that's good about the current composting operation is that it's too much
for the space that they have allocated at the landfill, and it's a little too much for the staff that
they have right now. There are problems with keeping up with composting. So, one of the
options was expanding the compost program. This is is seen as an alternative and would
definitely be an option that would take those organics --and more organics --and expand out the
composting operation. They would possibly find a new location, either close to where it's
currently located at in the landfill, or potentially somewhere else. Welter stated they looked at
other potential locations around the City, but that option would definitely be to expand out the
composting, because the footprint where the methane gas is coming from it is much more
controllable. The problem with the current landfill cell is it is almost eight acres, which is a big
piece of land, and to collect the gas and trap the gas and transport the gas off such a big area is
a lot harder to do than it is in a smaller compost and certainly a lot more problematic than doing
an anaerobic digester at a wastewater treatment plant.
Fraser said one of his concerns is that since they have spent a fair amount of money to have
this consulting group study accomplished, which is a terrific study, does that put some pressure
to go ahead with one of these alternatives associated with the consultant's study? It would be
nice, Fraser stated, to keep that out of the formula, particularly since, as Giannakouros said, if
they were to back -pocket this, they have is as a benchmark. He stated he is still not comfortable
moving ahead without taking a further look at other alternatives, perhaps ones they haven't
even thought about yet that could give them a faster and even greater return on investment,
keeping in mind what the overall goal is. He feels he can't in good conscience tell the City that
this is the way to go and the best use of limited resources.
Giannakouros wanted to clarify that if they have 1500 tons of extra capacity at the wastewater
treatment plant in the low diversion scenario and when they compost, there're some gains in
methane lock. They're losing some stuff and have fossil fuel inputs and other things that are
happening, but it's better than just throwing it in the forest somewhere. However, a better option
would be to send it down to the wastewater treatment plant where they're capturing more of that
Climate Action Commission
March 11 2021
Page 7 of 11
methane. Giannakouros asked if he was correct in understanding in the report they're implying
that there's some capital expenditures that still have to happen if they move up to meet that
1500 tons of capacity to max out the wastewater treatment plant. Welter confirmed yes; the
facility would need to be changed some. The digester has that capacity based on the original
design of the wastewater treatment plant, but they would need a loading and unloading area to
be able to bring those organics in and put them into the digester. Welter noted there would need
to be some changes at either place if they are going to generate electricity, or put it in the
pipeline. They need to treat the gas in all the scenarios. The big difference is when the jump
from the 1500 tons scenario, to the low diversion scenario, which is the 7500 tons, at that point
they need to put in a new digester or a separate digester, because they don't have enough
capacity in the existing digester. They would build a brand-new digester facility and that's why
the price point jumps so dramatically from 1500 tons to the low diversion scenario. If they looked
something higher than 7500 tons, like 15,000 tons, it's not just twice as expensive, it is many
times more expensive.
Giannakouros stated at the University of Iowa campus and everywhere he talks to students, he
tells them don't throw out your food waste, save those banana peels. But at the end of this
process they hear as a community, as a City, there is just not a payback financially or it's not
feasible right now to actually take those banana peels and do something with them that
captures that methane. He said it does reduce it somewhat, so the best option is to tell people
to compost, because composting is better than zero. Giannakouros also asked about dry
fermentation, but that requires some capital investment. So even just composting,
Giannakouros asked, what would it take to move that composting operation somewhere else
and try to compost at a much higher rate? Welter replied that is Alternative Four and is well
covered in the study, so he encouraged them to go back and look at that. The benefits of that
and the costs of that are all covered in that alternative four. Giannakouros said he saw that
alternative as different than increasing diversion from people's houses. What he was asking is if
the Commission decides as they talk about outreach to educate people to divert more of their
food and fill their compost bins, could it be the City really has nowhere to put it and it's not
actually being composted? Welter said they are composting everything that is brought to them,
but it takes a process of almost a year to generate a finished compost product, and that takes a
lot of operator time. It also changes the permit at the landfill, as it would anywhere else too as it
would need to be permitted for waste activity. Also, the Iowa DNR must issue a permit stating
air quality standards are met and water quality standards are met. Right now, they are pretty
much at capacity with composting activity, so if they go beyond that they must find new space,
potentially get different equipment, hire more staff, and get new permits. All of that covered in
Alternative Four. But that scenario doesn't have a lot of impact on greenhouse gas — it is
marginal and only applies to the landfill. Whereas the natural gas replacement alternative not
only applies to the landfill but also the wastewater treatment plants, as the diversionary
scenarios are where they are taking organics from the landfill and diverting them over to the
wastewater treatment plant.
Fraser asked if it is true that the least expensive alternative to get into wouldn't give enough of
an ROI to be a good phase one (if they were doing a phase one, phase two, phase three, etc.)?
Did they have to make a major commitment to really do this the right way starting from scratch?
Welter stated the only scenarios that aren't going to involve as much capital construction are
Alternatives Three and Four, natural gas replacement at the wastewater treatment plant and
expanded composting at the landfill. However, the issue with those scenarios is just in a pure
rank standpoint; they're ranked very low on the amount of greenhouse gas reductions that those
rA
Climate Action Commission
March 11 2021
Page 8 of 11
scenarios do. And when they look at the total ranking system, they're ranked 10th and 14t" out
of 16 alternatives, and the total change in carbon dioxide emissions and metric tons for
expanded composting is about a third of what it would be with pipeline injection at the landfill.
So, there is some impact, but it isn't going to have the same impact, which is why it has a $6
million price tag instead of a $50 million price tag.
Giannakouros asked why they couldn't just take 1500 extra tons, put it into the wastewater
treatment plant, and currently just flare that off and get some kind of reduction. Does the
infrastructure it takes for the loading and unloading itself have a huge initial investment? Welter
confirmed that is the issue; currently there's no way for them to get the material into the
digester. They must sort it and mince it and prepare it to get into the digester, and they need all
that that infrastructure to be able to insert it into the digester without causing the digester extra
problems.
Leckband agreed this is something that would be really great if it just made money, reduced
emissions immediately and demonstrably, and also had a really good payback. So, in theory, it
is great and something to really get behind, but it seems like there are better things to spend the
money and time on.
Fraser asked how early of an adopter would Iowa City be in doing this, and is there a history of
other cities that have been very successful with these projects? Welter said they went to visit
four other facilities before they wrote the request for proposals to hire the consultant. They saw
Dubuque's system, Des Moines', Amana Colonies', and Muscatine's. Each of them is doing
something just different enough that none of them are the same. Some are taking high strength
industrial wastes, some of them are not, some of them are taking leftover food waste. Amana
Colonies is mixing food waste and industrial waste with farm waste, so each system is a little bit
different in the technology that they put in and exactly what they're generating from that. In the
case of Muscatine and Des Moines, they're located right next to large industrial facilities and
using the gas that's generated from those activities to be used directly in the vicinity of those
operations. Iowa City is not an industrial town.
Fraser asked which of those scenarios they looked at would be closest to the sort of capacity
that Iowa City has. Welter stated that probably Dubuque is the closest to what they would
envision for Iowa City. However, when the staff was up there, there were some sentiments
expressed to them about some buyer's remorse and some concern from the Dubuque staff that
maybe they weren't getting what they what they wanted out of it. It could have been more from a
business standpoint, that they were expecting a certain amount of payback. Welter said it is
worth noting that the waste market is very much like any other commodities market; it is not
something one can really predict. In the Muscatine scenario, they're sitting in a non -attainment
zone down in the bottom of the valley, and that's a very different air quality scenario than in
Iowa City and Des Moines. Muscatine is sitting right next to some large manufacturers that
made it much more economically and practically sensible.
Fraser asked what the format is that the Commission is expected to use in making the
recommendation to the City Council? Monroe replied that it depends on the action they choose
to take. If someone wanted to make a motion, to take a particular action or not take a particular
action, then they would do so and that would be communicated through the minutes to Council.
If they were going to determine based on the discussion to sit on the study, absorb the data,
and go forward with other priorities, they can do nothing and again the minutes would reflect
Climate Action Commission
March 11 2021
Page 9 of 11
that. The Commission also was welcome to write to Council and provide an overview saying
they discussed it and liked the study but chose not to take an action or recommended that the
City move forward at this time. So, they can write a letter, take a vote, or do none of those
things and just let the discussion stand on its own. Fraser asked if Council is waiting for some
word from the Commission. Monroe stated if the Commission needs to take more time to
assemble a response or act, they are more than welcome to do that. This is just an awareness
that they're finished with the study. HDR's responsibility was to present to the Commission.
They have the presentation available to the public if they want to see it, including Council.
Council is just going to be responsive to whatever actions the Commission takes.
Fraser stated his concern is that he had not heard any formative and positive responses from
any of the Commission members. He wondered, if based on that, any member of the
Commission would like to present a motion, perhaps to delay action and keep the report in
reserve. He also liked the idea of waiting a little longer to see what Dubuque and some of these
other programs are doing, and for the City to look at alternative uses of resources to get the
maximum return on investment and attain the most goals that they possibly can related to
reducing carbon footprint per the plan. He felt it would be more professional if they had a motion
of some kind and wrote a letter to City Council.
Gardner stated the Commission could craft a letter before making a motion, and then at a
subsequent meeting have a motion to accept the letter and forward it on to City Council.
Fraser liked that idea and noted they would need a discussion about the exact wording of the
letter, as he didn't want to be the sole author of the letter. He proposed they get together to draft
the letter in a small working group, so that it doesn't fall under the public meeting requirements.
Giannakouros and Leckband will work with Fraser to draft a letter and then circulate it among the
rest of the Commission for review.
NEW BUSINESS:
Request for two commissioners to participate in Climate Action Grant review: Gardner
stated they would like two commissioners to participate in the Climate Action Grant review. As
the Commission knows, the City has an annual application period for the upcoming grant cycle.
It opened the day of this meeting and will remain open for the duration of the month, closing on
April 1. After that time, they will have to sort through the applications and determine who is
going to receive funding. She noted the program this year is a little different than it was last year
when there was a maximum grant amount of $5,000 for business or nonprofit. This year that
grant amount has been increased to $10,000 to allow for bigger projects, and they've also
introduced a mini grant for youth -led projects so that students in grades K-12 can apply for $500
to carry out projects related to the Climate Action Plan. Gardner noted other City grants are
reviewed by a combination of Commission and City staff members, but the Climate Action
grants initially have been reviewed by City staff members. However, as the program is maturing,
staff thought it would be a good idea to bring some Commission members to help with the
review process. It would involve going over the applications received. There is a scoring rubric
that is used, and then a meeting with the review committee, which is comprised of other City
staff members, to determine who the top awardees are to receive funding.
9
Climate Action Commission
March 11 2021
Page 10 of 11
Fraser asked for a rough estimate of the time involved. Gardner said that will depend on the
number of grants received, but likely around a couple of hours of reading through the
applications, and probably one or two hours more discussing them with the staff committee. All
in all, somewhere less than five hours of total work.
Grimm noted that he should not be on this committee because he represents the School
District, and they may apply.
Hutchinson and Giannakouros volunteered to be on the committee.
Update on Working Groups:
Buildings: Soglin stated they don't have anything to report. They are working on a memo they
hope to discuss at either the next session or the one after.
Outreach: Gardner stated they discussed the Climate Action Grants at their last meeting and
talked about the Neighborhood Energy Blitz which is taking shape for April. She encouraged all
to read the minutes that were included in the packet for more details.
Equity/Adaptation: Hutchinson stated they do not have anything to report since the last
Commission meeting.
RECAP OF ACTIONABLE ITEMS FOR COMMISSION, WORKING GROUPS, AND STAFF:
Gardner noted that there was a suggestion while they were looking at the updated action plan
table that it might be useful for staff to join working group meetings just to talk about that in a
little more depth. She will add that as an action item for staff to reach out to each of the working
groups to arrange a time to do so.
Fraser, Giannakouros, and Leckband will draft a letter about the methane feasibility study, and
staff will check to see if it needs to be included in the packet for the next meeting. It will be an
action item on the next agenda to review that letter.
Gardner will follow up with Hutchinson and Giannakouros about the Climate Action Grants.
Finally, a reminder if any of the working groups do meet between now the next meeting and
would like their minutes included in the packet again, please get them to Gardner by March 29.
Giannakouros noted they had Robert Bullard doing a University Regents lecture between ISU,
UNI and University of Iowa tonight. He is the self -titled father of the environmental justice
movement. The lecture is to be open to the public and starts at 7pm.
ADJOURNMENT:
Grimm made a motion to adjourn.
Soglin seconded the motion.
A vote was taken, and the motion passed unanimously.
10
Climate Action Commission
March 1, 2021
Page 11 of 11
CLIMATE ACTION COMMISSION
ATTENDANCE RECORD
2021
NAME
TERM EXP.
N
0
N
N
N
0
N
N
N
0
N
N
N
0
N
N
N
0
N
N
N
0
N
N
N
0
N
N
00
N
0
N
N
Madeleine Bradley
12/31/2022
x
x
x
John Fraser
12/31/2020
x
x
x
Stratis Giannakouros
UI Rep
x
O/E
x
Megan Hill
12/31/2022
x
x
O/E
Grace Holbrook
12/31/2021
O/E
O/E
O/E
Kasey Hutchinson
12/31/2022
x
x
x
Matt Krieger
12/31/2020
x
x
x
Jesse Leckband
MidAmerican Rep
O/E
x
x
Katie Sarsfield
12/31/2020
x
x
x
Becky Sogl i n
12/31/2022
x
x
x
Eric Tate
12/31/2021
x
O/E
O/E
Ben Grimm
10/31/2022
x
x
x
KEY: X =
Present
O =
Absent
O/E
= Absent/Excused
NM
= No Meeting
-- --
= Not a Member
11
Climate Action and Outreach Office Updates: Feb./March 2021
Recent Activity
Community -wide Climate Action
• TIF-funded climate action incentive program underway
o Ten applications received so far; projects include mechanical system upgrades, LED
lighting, and solar installations
o Staff are connecting applicants with MidAmerican for additional energy efficiency
projects and rebate information
o First project (P&G) to be brought before City Council in April
• Earth Day Neighborhood Energy Blitz
o Date set for April 24 (door-to-door)/April 25 (booth at neighborhood event) for South
District; Goal to reach 1300 households
o Supplies ordered and print material in production (translated into Spanish, French,
Arabic, and Swahili); kit assembly to begin next week
o Volunteer recruitment underway
• Marketing RFP
o Contract awarded to Cause Impact (Balanced Approach)
o Initial meeting held to refine project scope, review communications collateral, and
discuss market segments and strategy for benefit/barrier research
o Collaborating to identify key Community Based Organizations for initial
outreach/research efforts
• Energy Efficiency Building Projects
o Demonstration rehab project underway at Taylor Drive duplex
■ Project includes insulation in walls, floor, and attic; new windows; high
efficiency appliances; solar panels
■ Partnership with City High building trades students on some of the rehab work
underway; additional partnership with Backyard Abundance on pollinator -
friendly landscaping in front yard being explored
o Elevation Homebuilders project selected for Parade of Homes entry to showcase energy
efficiency
■ Features include dead zone HVAC, smart switches and thermostat, 100% LED
lighting, EV charging, and Aerobarrier air sealing
• Climate Action Grants
o Applications being accepted through April 1
o Award amounts increased to $10,000 for businesses/nonprofits and new $500 mini -
grants developed for K-12 student projects
• Grow Solar Linn and Johnson County
o Co -hosting first virtual Power Hour in April to help kick off 2021 initiative
o Climate Ambassador signed on as an Iowa City Power Hour presenter
Current Grant Projects
0 IEDA-Eastern Iowa EV Readiness Planning
o Steering committee/partner communities prioritizing recommended actions gathered
during stakeholder feedback event
o Outreach ongoing to multi -family housing landlords for barrier analysis
o Anticipated draft report to come in May
• Heartland Carbon Sequestration
o Finalized GIS-based Carbon Management tool to be showcased at Heartland
Sustainability Directors Network virtual convening in April
o Capstone project to be tree planting in Court Hill Park and along Normandy Drive to
replace dead and dying trees impacted by emerald ash borer and/or the derecho
Reporting and Analysis
• GHG Inventory
o Initiated data collection by contacting external and internal departments involved in the
analysis
o Some data needs to be validated and will not be available until late Mayor June
• Municipal operations
o Tracking water and energy usage of municipal facilities
o Regular meetings with City departments:
■ Discussed with Building Maintenance about upgrading LED lights at parking
ramps
■ Discussed upgrading lighting at Mercer park with facilities management
o Working with staff to incorporate GHG reductions and increase sustainability practices
within City operations
• ICLEI/Global Covenant of Mayors
o The CDP report format has slightly changed for 2021
o More information is needed to stay compliant with CDP requirements in the new report
o Started collecting information for the new report
Ongoing Projects
Equity Outreach Program
• Shortened equity report being drafted for review
Communications (with part-time Sustainability Communications Assistance)
• New part-time communications assistant hired, Olivia Parrott
• Ongoing monthly Sustainability Newsletter
• Efforts to streamline website begun; future updates being planned while City pursues new web
platform
• Next Smart Series presentation with the Iowa City Area Business Partnership: May 11 (LED
lights)
Green Iowa AmeriCorps
• Transitioning from Home Energy Kit delivery to summer education/outreach programming
• Recruitment underway for 2021-2022 members
• AmeriCorps team working with Grow Solar initiative to offer Home Energy Audits for Iowa City
applicants
Climate Ambassadors
• Second cohort completed training; applications being accepted through April 9 for next training
session to commence at the end of April
• Monthly "virtual hangouts" ongoing for alumni; also involved in upcoming Energy Blitz
Ongoing Sustainability Groups and Committees
• Urban Sustainability Directors Network groups
• Heartland (Midwestern) Monthly calls, annual meeting
• Johnson County Sustainability Working Group, quarterly meetings
March, 31, 2021
Mayor and City Council Members:
On behalf of the Iowa City Climate Commission, I would like to convey the commission's thoughts and
recommendation regarding the recently completed Biogas Utilization Feasibility Report.
The members of the commission unanimously agree that this feasibility Report provides important
insight for future greenhouse gas emissions reductions scenarios. The report acts as a benchmark
against which other climate investment alternatives can be judged, while providing a comprehensive
understanding of the opportunities available in the landfill and wastewater facilities.
While this study is valuable to the ongoing work of the commission and the City, it is the
recommendation of this commission that the city should not pursue any of the capital project scenarios
laid out in the feasibility study at this time. Rather, the commission suggests that we continue to
investigate alternatives for meeting the city's ambitious climate commitments in the coming months
and years.
Thank You,
John Fraser
Chair, Iowa City Climate Commission
Report by the BUILDING WORKING GROUP (Becky Soglin, Matt Krieger, Ben Grimm, Jeff Falk)
March 19, 2021 meeting
• The BWG met with Wendy Ford to learn about and discuss sustainability requirements in the
city's Tax Increment Financing (TIF) policy and why they apply to new construction but not to
renovation.
• BWG Team member announcements:
o A limited -time program kicks off in April to give people in Iowa City as well as
throughout Johnson and Linn counties access to solar education and competitive prices
for residential, business and farm solar installations through volume purchasing.
Building on past successes, the counties, Iowa City, Cedar Rapids and several partners
are joining efforts to offer Grow Solar Linn + Johnson Counties to residents. Area
homeowners, farmers and business owners can attend online, free one -hour solar
Power Hours to learn about solar and the volume purchasing, and sign up for free
quotes and site assessments. The Midwest Renewable Energy Association is again
providing program assistance, with the launch taking place online at 6:30 p.m., April 13.
People can register for the kick-off or other Power Hours as well as program alerts at
linniohnson.growsolar.or . Program information will also be posted at
https://www.facebook.com/GrowSolarLinnJohnsonCounties
• The team arranged to meet virtually in April with city staff Sarah Garden and Mohsen
Vahidzadeh to get better acquainted and focus on several of the accelerated actions.
Outreach Working Group, Meeting Notes
Wednesday, March 17, 2021, noon — 1 p.m.
Zoom Meeting Link:
https://zoom.us/i/97398387268?pwd=Mmo2alAOT1 E2MytgU0Zia2Uxa3FHZz09
Attendees:
Sarah Gardner, Matt Krieger, John Fraser, Madeleine Bradley, Grace Holbrook, Marcia
Bollinger, Deb Schoelerman, BlakeQ, �ne, Cheryl Miller (JCED)
1. Welcome and Introductions
2. Updates
Ambassador program
i. Standardized PPT slide deck for community conversations was
developed as a baseline for ambassadors to use or not.
ii. 2nd cohort graduating next week
iii. Marcia suggested having an ambassador present to neighborhood
council.
iv. Need to find ways to diversify the ambassador group.
1. Speak to specific organizations and their membership
/stakeholders to train them as ambassadors at their facility could
be an option.
2. Matt will send the original target outreach list developed by the
precursor to the commission to Sarah. It had individuals and
organizations identified that were important for climate action in
the community. Ambassadors could reach out and speak to those
groups or at least setup a conversation about what's important to
those groups.
3. How to do outreach with these groups during COVID? Zoom only
goes so far and is unusable in some cases. Center for Worker
Justice example that Deb mentioned don't have access to Zoom.
Tough for in -person right now, not allowed in many cases. Will
have to look at ramping up action on in -person opportunities once
pandemic is under control.
4. Future working group members can be ambassadors.
5. Website for Earth Day this year — 51 positive things happening
around our community, nationally, and internationally. John
mentioned the United Nations focus areas and how it's good that
we're acting on those focus areas. Good to have that validation.
Neighborhood Energy Blitz
i. Students will not be sponsored by the school district, but will still progress
as the volunteer base for the event.
ii. 4/24 is planned for the blitz. 4/25, they will host a booth.
iii. GT Karr is providing space in his warehouse for storing and assembly of
the kits that will be distributed.
• Climate Action Grants
i. Open until the end of the month.
ii. 2 climate action commissioners agreed to serve on the selection
committee
iii. Distribute the opportunity to others that might be interested.
• Communications Assistance hired
3. Review CAC workplan and identify projects for 2021
• Sarah proposed the group identify 2-3 items each to focus on and discuss that at
the next meeting and develop a work plan for the rest of the year. This is what
the equity working group decided to do. The rest of the Outreach WG agreed
that would work going forward
• As part of working through the action plan items, have a list of items we're
addressing, like "What's in it for me?" or barriers to acceptance. Sarah
mentioned the presentation last month about climate action in communities of
color and how people care about what saves them money or what makes them
money.
• Sarah shared a Venn Diagram about relevancy — what you speak about should
be about what people care about.
4. Other Items — Agendas and minutes for the working group going forward
• Sarah asked if someone else on the WG could do the agendas and minutes.
She mentioned the Adaptation group is rotating the responsibility. The group
agreed that would work. Madeleine will set agenda for next meeting, Grace will
follow the month after that. Matt is working on minutes for this meeting.
5. Action Items:
1. Madeleine will send out agenda for next meeting to Sarah for distribution.
2. Forward out the solar study survey once it's ready in April to your individual
networks.
3. Pick 3 items from the accelerated action list to prioritize at the next meeting.
Next Meeting Wed, 4/21