Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout030508 Climate Task Force Minutes.pdfMinutes of the Climate Protection Task Force Bozeman, Montana Wednesday March 5, 2008 Meeting Location and Time: Bozeman Public Library, 626 E Main Street, 6:00PM CPTF Members In Attendance: David Boggeman, Greg Pederson (via phone), Mel Kotur, Scott Bischke, , Martin Knight, Molly Cross, Steve Bruner, Pat McGowen, Matt Madden, Peter Belschwender Absent: Otto Pohl, Collin Moore, Mark Johnson Other Attendees: staff liaison Hattie Baker, minutes taken by Lea T. F. Warden Hattie complied the 52 recommendations sent by each subcommittee prior to meeting; the compiled list was handed out to the group along with a separate document listing her recommendations; one of Hattie’s recommendation was for the current task force to head up and supervise the community task force which will create the community CAP; this would require another one-year commitment and would involve appointing community members to technical groups who would report to the current task force members--technical groups would do the work and bring in recommendations to task force leaders who provide guidance Group reviewed the proposed timeline leading up to the presentation of the Bozeman Climate Action Plan to the City Commission as outlined by Scott Bischke April 2nd: First draft of recommendation from each subcommittee (Hattie will email template from Scott) April 9th- Send first draft to input members for review and clarification (Hattie will send) May 7th - Final draft from each subcommittee due (Scott will format) May 14th -Compiled CAP ready May20th- Practice oral presentation of CAP May 21st -Round table discussion with commission May27th- Presentation to Commission (Hattie will be able to attend) Hattie: full group met five times and each subgroup met 5 times; she posted list of community members each subgroup has met with during the process; called “input people” Scott: perhaps we should meet with the input people to go over the draft to make sure data is correct; send specific segments of the draft to particular people for review; another option, in order to respect their time, would be to highlight the areas in the CAP for them to focus on Steve: would be easier to send entire doc and highlight areas; should send out after first draft Molly: this should be done shortly after April 2nd first draft Group decided the draft should be sent to input people by April 9th; Hattie will let input people know this is being planned to give them time to schedule the necessary time Pat: time is needed to edit and format documents brought in by subgroup; is the April 9th deadline too narrow; First draft may be too disjointed; perhaps we should let input people know to ignore formatting irregularities Scott Bischke volunteered to blend the documents Group moved on to discuss the 52 recommendations and evaluate each one based on a list of factors Hattie posted the following CO2 figures for the task force to focus on when discussing list of preliminary recommendations Baseline 2000 6,085 tons CO2e Interim 2006 8,011 tons CO2e Goal 2020 5,172 tons CO2e Reduction 2,839 tons CO2e Hattie posted the following list of factors the group could use to evaluate recommendations along with rating symbols: (Hattie has descriptions for each factor) Rating/Evaluation symbols ++ Highly Positive + Positive outcome 0 no outcome - negative outcome -- highly negative ? not enough information n/a factor does not apply to proposed action Factors -Community -Economy -Environment -Self Reliance & Security -Finances/Affordability -Resource Use -Long-Term Effects -Unintended Consequences -Multiple Benefits Group discussed how the evaluation process is suppose to work David: the evaluation is a culling process Hattie: this is a discussion, to look at each recommendation through different lenses/factors Steve: the factors are all valid Matt: let’s try a recommendation to see how this evaluation process works; to decide on what factors to use Greg: if we take the first recommendation Retrofitting Buildings it is a ++ for environment but causes waste so – environment Scott: we should screen recommendation by how they reduce CO2 emissions David: need to add CO2 to “factor” list Hattie: we can make our own list and not use any of the posted factors David: feasibility also a factor; Feasibility includes political and economic issue along with available resource; feasibility could be broken down depending on recommendation Mel: affordability needs to be included as a factor Peter: feasibility includes affordability Molly: feasibility should perhaps be narrowed to social and political Factors List developed by task force: CO2e Reduction Feasibility (political/social) Affordability ($/CO2e) Multiple Benefits or Unintended Consequences (catch-all category) Affordability should mean absolute cost, dollar per CO2 costs and savings, long-term operational costs or life-cycle costs? Molly: after evaluation we could star low hanging fruit in regards to affordability Multiple Benefits & Unintended Consequences category meant to list benefits and encapsulate other factors on preliminary list Group proceeded to go through list of recommendations and placing rating symbols Planning/Building/Energy: Mel, Otto, Peter, Matt, Steve Recommendation #2 Building Codes: should this be included in the community or municipal plan? Steve: city codes should be revised to be more accessible to LEED; develop codes to allow LEED Molly: this is a municipal recommendation; wording should not mandate but simply allow for LEED characteristics #4 Motion Detectors is a repeat of #1 Retrofitting and Upgrade of Buildings #5 Purchase Green Electricity Tags Hattie: green tags are expensive; there is no capital return David: but there is a benefit of job creation by supporting green energy sources Molly: higher demand will decrease costs in renewable energy Peter: rate to buy green tags would lower #6 Energy Efficient Vending Machine and #7 Procurement Policy-Energy Star should also be under #1 or a subset of #1 #8 Daylight Janitorial Cleaning creates positive social impact; costs less; reduces CO2 Steve: feasibility should be a 0 because some may not like added people in work space #9 Hire Energy Manager Peter: is this the person who will set baseline James Goehrung (Facilities superintendant) does not know how inputs translate into power/energy use Hattie: this person would purchase energy for city Matt: why does school have energy manager but not the city Mel: energy manager for school is also maintenance manager Scott: energy manager would monitor energy usage and CO2 emissions as well as purchase energy #10 Create Energy Fund: need to ask Otto about this recommendation, not enough info #11 Maintenance Manual and Policy Guidebook Steve: there is a LEED manual for existing buildings Hattie: is working with James to develop policy that follows LEED guideline #13 Energy Audits for all city facilities new recommendation suggested by Mel Hattie: last city audit was in 1996 but city is currently doing a facility rating process Mel: audits will be free and will point out inefficiencies Scott: CO2 would be reduced if improvements are made based on audit Transportation & Land Use: Greg, Pat, David, Martin #1 Traffic Signals Pat: currently lights run on a 24 hour operation; nighttime flashing mode cuts energy use nearly in half; pedestrian safety is a concern with the flashing mode; new controllers can function to protect pedestrians crossing streets; Main is green at night and senses cars on cross streets to cycle #3 Vehicle Purchasing Policy Pat: city should write a policy requiring justification for vehicle and energy purchases that go against CAP; purchasing choices should factor EPA mileage rating into cost of vehicle; city should buy vehicles that fit the job Feasibility for this recommendation is low because many will see this as an infringement to current mode / lifestyle #4 Tracking Methods for Fleet Steve: this is more of a measuring tool which will show if city is meeting CO2 recommendations #5 Vehicle Replacement Program Pat: city currently run vehicles as long as possible David: they have doubled the fleet by not retiring old cars Peter: establishing a Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standard would eliminate old vehicles in order to maintain prescribed CAFE standard David: standards should be established by upper management in order to be unified Molly: CAFE standard gives city flexibility by being an average of entire fleet not on individual vehicles; should task force set the number? Pat: certain divisions only have big vehicles Molly: take average of entire city not departments; requires person to track the entire city fleet Hattie: purchasing agent could maintain this Pat: person could be seen as playing favorites Peter: allot amounts based on department needs Pat and David will work on this recommendation TLU Recommendations 6-18 are more in line with a community CAP #13 Incentives for carpooling, walking, biking, public transport is applicable to municipal CAP employee conservation program for transport; incorporate monetary incentives for city employees #16 Hire full-time bike/pedestrian coordinator is also city recommendation because city would pay for the position Waste/Water & Recycling: Molly, Mark, Collin, Scott #1 Install electricity-producing turbine Scott: need task force to recommend this project; a lot of work has already been done and the proposal is ready to go; project has been held back because pay-back period was too long; electricity produced would be used to run the plant #2 LEED building standards for plant is part of Planning Building & Energy recommendation #1 #3 Official City Policy that bottle water not be purchased with city funds Hattie: fire dept concerned about creating a policy that would impact emergency events; Add exception for emergency situation #4 Lyman plant turbine study: would cost money; no immediate effect on CO2 level #5 Monitoring City Water Usage and Establish Usage Goals: CO2 reduction through reduction in pumping need #6 Recycling: City does have bins but not yet available in all facilities #7 Glass Grinding Machinery purchase with grant funds Scott spoke with Steve Johnson about glass recycling; glass currently being shipped to Portland. No incentive for JTL to take sand Molly: there would be a CO2 reduction by not sending to Portland Scott: glass recycling, and recycling in general is, important to public; less CO2 to transport to JTL than dump #8 Power 33% of Solid Waste Transport Vehicle using bio-fuels: Recommendation should use the term bio-fuels instead of specifying ethanol #9 Decrease Garbage Being Sent to Landfill Recommendation calls for an increase in recycling and composting Current compost consists mainly of grass clippings and pesticides are a problem There are negative effects in collecting compost such as increase cost, fuel usage, and methane Put #9 into #6; composting recommendation needs to be revisited #10 Recycling Statistics more community orientated but city recycling is linked to city CO2 reductions Molly: #10 should be put into #6 #11 Create Infrastructure for Collecting Recyclables in all municipal buildings could be put into #6 #15 work already being done by waste water staff and they should be commended #16 Secure funding for WWTP upgrades: Upgrades will increase capacity which will lead to increase emissions #17 Install Micro-Turbine Power Generation System Turbine is one way to combat increase emission in the future; it is an expensive system Group then reviewed the evaluation chart Scott: chart could be included in CAP report to show how recommendations were developed April 2nd the group will look at recommendations geared more towards the community Final business Hattie: one member has not been to four meetings; how should group handle the situation Group decided an email should be sent to the individual, which addresses the agreement made by task force members at the beginning of the project, and provide the individual the option to leave; group does not want to eliminate the member Meeting Adjourned 8:45 PM