|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1. |
|
|
|
Call to Order |
|
Vice Chair Wolkowinsky called the meeting to order at 4:33. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2. |
|
|
|
ROLL CALL
NOTE: Commissioner may be in attendance through other technological means. |
Commissioner Noah Baker Commissioner Kristen Konkel Commissioner Tom Lammie |
Commissioner Mary Ellen Metzger Commissioner Rodger Scurlock Vice Chair Amy Wolkowinsky Vacant |
|
|
Others present: Andres “Dapper Dre” Aduato (Public and Equity Advisor Group member), Stacy Fobar (Deputy City Clerk), Tia Hatton (Staff), Michele James (Public, Online), Marisa Miller (Staff), Jenny Niemann (Staff), Jenna Ortega (Staff), Natalie Pierson (Staff, Online Presenter), Professional Energy Auditor with Cozy Home (Public), |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3. |
|
|
|
Land Acknowledgment The Sustainability Commission humbly acknowledges the ancestral homelands of this area’s Indigenous nations and original stewards. These lands, still inhabited by Native descendants, border mountains sacred to Indigenous peoples. We honor them, their legacies, their traditions, and their continued contributions. We celebrate their past, present, and future generations who will forever know this place as home. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4. |
|
|
|
Public Comment At this time, any member of the public may address the Commission on any subject within their jurisdiction that is not scheduled before the Commission on that day. Due to Open Meeting Laws, the Commission cannot discuss or act on items presented during this portion of the agenda. To address the Commission on an item that is on the agenda, please use the Teams Chat function: simply type in "public comment" to indicate to the Chair that you would like to comment. The Chair will then recognize you when it is time for public comment, and staff will unmute your microphone if needed. |
|
No public comment. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5. |
|
|
|
Approval of March Minutes - All Commissioners |
|
Commissioner Metzger moved and Commissioner Konkel seconded to approve the March minutes. Approved by vote: 6-0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6. |
|
|
|
Business |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. |
|
|
Welcome/Intros - All Commissioners and Sustainability Staff |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
B. |
|
|
McAllister Ranch - Invite to Commissioner to serve on the application review panel – presented by Natalie Pierson, Food Systems Coordinator |
|
-
Ms. Pierson extended an invitation to Commissioners for one to serve on the review panel for regenerative urban agriculture applications and said April 30, 2024, at 5 P.M. was the joining deadline.
-
She answered a question about ranch acreage. The total property is 10 acres, with about 3 acres available to farm. Some acreage is allocated to other uses, such as watershed restoration, flood management, and a future pollinator garden.
-
Commissioner Metzger indicated she is available and interested in serving on the review panel.
-
Vice Chair Wolkowinsky congratulated Ms. Pierson on her new position with the Sustainability Office.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
C. |
|
|
Regional Plan Update and Clarification -Tia Hatton (Staff Liaison)
|
|
- Ms. Hatton clarified that the Commission will be asked for feedback on the Regional Plan as a whole in the Fall, following the current building and drafting phase.
- Commissioners may attend subcommittee meetings as community members and/or submit comments during the drafting phase if they wish. The newsletter contains the schedule for planned chapter draft meetings. Staff explained that once a more developed form of the Regional Plan Update comes before the Commission in the Fall, there will be a 60-90 day review process, during which changes are welcome and anticipated. Commissioner Metzger stated this is the first regional plan she has encountered in any Arizona town she knows.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
D. |
|
|
Chair and Possible Vice Chair Elections - Vice Chair Amy Wolkowinsky |
|
Following some discussion, Commissioner Konkel nominated Vice Chair Wolkowinsky. Vice Chair Wolkowinsky made a motion and Commissioner Metzger seconded the motion for Vice Chair Wolkowinsky to serve as Commission Chair. Approved by vote: 6-0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
E. |
|
|
Equity Assessment & the Neighborhood Sustainability Grant program - Jenna Ortega (Climate Engagement Analyst), Tia Hatton (Staff Liaison), and all Commissioners |
|
- FSO staff developed the Equity Assessment Tool to evaluate all programs and asked the Commission to apply the tool to the Neighborhood Sustainability Grant program at this meeting.
- An overview, scoring rubric, and outreach methods were presented (see attached presentation).
- Commissioners asked about the grant funding source; staff responded that they believed it was from the Environmental Management Fee (a small fee on City water bills).
- Commissioner Lammie asked about project resiliency. Staff explained that some projects involved partnerships with ongoing programs, and some created permanent installations (such as bicycle racks for a homeless shelter). One year after receiving funding, grant recipients present outcomes and future plans to the Commission, and an application question inquires about the project's duration.
- Commissioner Konkel pointed out that for some applicants, this may be their first experience with a grant application. Commissioners can ask clarifying questions and help applicants with the application process, offering feedback that can potentially raise their scores.
- Answering Commissioner Metzger's question about radio ads, staff said paid ads were on KAFF since their reach differs from the typical FSO audience.
- Ms. Ortega led commissioners as they completed the Equity Assessment Tool and shared their responses. She clarified that the portions that appeared to have already been completed were actually just examples, not real answers.
- Commissioners identified additional research/data as essential to assessing the equitability of the Neighborhood Sustainability Grants. Commissioner Lammie asked about equity with regard to previous grant rounds, and Ms. Hatton replied that this is the first time this Tool has been applied as a lens to analyze equitability by FSO. Staff admitted there was limited demographic data up to this point, but future grant applications could include relevant questions to address these gaps.
- Commissioner Metzger mentioned perhaps focusing on equity moving forward rather than applying the equity lens to previous years’ process. She suggested an Equity section in the grant scoring rubric.
- There was a robust discussion surrounding outreach to and communication with potential grant applicants and prioritizing those who are historically marginalized: did the outreach question on the Equity Tool apply to the grant applicants themselves or to the communities the grants were intended to reach? Staff stated that the intention of the Tool was to identify beneficiaries not represented in the past. In other words, the Tool targets not the grant applicants but those they serve.
- In response, several Commissioners indicated the importance of evaluating outreach and communication to those eligible to apply for the grants as well, such as young people fearful of climate change and eager to make a difference and young children who are not eating well but could learn to grow their own healthy food.
- Along these lines, if the goal is to reach every Flagstaffian eligible to apply, we exclude those who only speak Spanish (or Navajo or other languages) if application materials are not translated. One suggestion was to use some of the grant money to pay for translation services. Ms. Ortega mentioned a small equity fund she has that could be used for this purpose. Commissioner Lammie questioned whether diverting money for operations rather than the grants themselves was the best use of funds.
- The Commission further discussed barriers for beneficiaries-as-applicants (rather than solely entities who serve others and decide what is best for the intended community); ideally, there is a mix of both types of applicants. Examples included indigenous groups and unsheltered individuals/communities (perhaps fliers in grocery stores to reach the latter audience).
- Commissioner Baker asked how the FSO catered to communities without consistent technological access and whether paper applications were readily available.
- Commissioner Metzger suggested offering paper applications at the library and signs containing more pictures and less text. She offered to serve as a coach for potential applicants.
- Commissioner Konkel mentioned that the Commissioners have led grant application workshops and offered office hours to help applicants complete their submissions. Commissioner Baker asked if these resources were communicated to potential applicants before they apply. Staff acknowledged that more could be done to better advertise these resources. Commissioner Konkel suggested setting and advertising office hours, workshops, etc. earlier in the process than in the past.
- Participants considered potential applicants intimidated by grant-writing requirements. Commissioner Konkel suggested avoiding penalizing less eloquent applications with lower scores. Community member and FSO Equity Adviser Dapper Dre recommended offering video, Zoom sessions, or other spoken options for applicants to lower this potential barrier and reach those who prefer to verbalize rather than write their submissions. During office hours, FSO staff or Commissioners could film an applicant verbally making the case for their project if they do not have the means to record it themselves. In fairness, Commissioner Metzger said the video applicants would have to answer the same questions as written applications. Ms. Ortega relayed that she has transcribed grant applications over the phone in the past.
- The discourse turned to feedback offered for denied applications. In the past, FSO emailed those applicants with an offer to provide feedback if requested. Ms. Hatton stated that this process was challenging because she would have to summarize her recollections from meeting discussions and explain why other projects scored higher. Commissioner Metzger said the Commission should provide feedback on why each project was rejected and that this task should not fall on staff members.
- The logistics of the review process were discussed. In the past, each Commissioner received a randomized selection of applications. At least three Commissioners reviewed each application, with each Commissioner reviewing about 12-13 applications in total. Downgraded scores required comment, and Commissioners analyzed what applicants could do to improve their scores.
- Commissioners and staff deliberated revisiting the Equity Assessment Tool at a later date and whether a working group would be beneficial. Commissioner Konkel has experienced four rounds of the grant proposal process and, though she finds it very rewarding, believes fresh perspectives are in order. Staff offered to send a short feedback survey about the grant process to prior applicants to collect data from their perspectives.
- Regarding the question of whether a list of intended audiences exists, several people mentioned tools that can, for example, identify low-income communities and look at public health risk factors and location. There is also the option to ask the community directly, and include optional demographic questions on the applications to collect that data upfront.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
F. |
|
|
Neighborhood Sustainability Grant 2024 - 2025 - Planning & Working Group - Staff Liaison Tia Hatton |
|
- Commissioners decided the workload for a working group might be untenable and put the Equity Tool on the Commission’s agenda for May and beyond,with a tentative outreach plan to be completed around the end of July.
- Community member and Equity Advisory Dapper Dre made several observations and suggestions:
- High school students are ineligible to apply, but they are potential beneficiaries. Perhaps if students in Flagstaff science classes were asked to design these kinds of projects, a few might convince their parents to apply for a Neighborhood Sustainability Grant to bring the project to life.
- Past grant winners were very skewed to the food and waste category, while the transportation and energy categories had disproportionately few selected. The scoring rubric could address this inequity. Mr. Dre pointed out that climate impact is multifaceted, and we will not just grow our way out of it. Vice Chair Wolkowinsky requested the distribution of applications (not just winners, but all submissions) by category. She suggested awarding merit points for applications in underrepresented categories.
- Mr. Dre's stated focused is transportation and he advised promoting comfort for pedestrians and cyclists. Few projects address car dependence. He argued that with transportation reform, it is best to offer a cultural exchange so people do not fear their cars will just be taken. Multimodal transportation means other transportation is as accessible/comfortable/enticing as car transportation. It is possible to design for pedestrianism; for example, NAU is a comfortable place to bike and walk because it was designed that way. In tandem with reduced parking options, we can offer a whole street with pedestrian-only access.
- He also advocated giving grace to applicants whose ideas might not be fully fledged out or whose applications fall outside of the scoring rubric but have a solid, broader general idea. Some of the outcomes they seek might be intangible and difficult to measure, but are great ideas, nonetheless. Similarly, a grant writer should receive some compensation, even if they are not the ones implementing the project. The time they took to write the grant can be considered from an equity perspective: they might be granting-writing between work shifts/classes/etc., and it is possible to give them some grace.
- Commissioner Metzger suggested searching for barriers within the application questions, such as asking whether the applicant is a first-time grant-writer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
G. |
|
|
May Commission Meeting - Not Canceled - Vice Chair Wolkowinsky |
|
- Staff Liaison Tia Hatton is unavailable for the May meeting, however Commissioners decided to hold the May meeting in her absence. They will continue working on the Equity Assessment Tool at the May meeting, with staff providing the data on how many applications have been submitted in each category.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7. |
|
|
|
To and From - All |
|
- Vice Chair Wolkowinsky asked to cancel To and From because the meeting time had run out.
- A quick announcement was made of a happy hour the following Thursday for former Chair Kevin White.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
8. |
|
|
|
Future Agenda Item Requests |
|
- Commissioners will continue working on the Equity Assessment Tool for the Neighborhood Sustainability Grants.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
9. |
|
|
|
Adjournment |
|
Vice Chair Wolkowinsky adjourned the meeting at 6:36 P.M. |