Meeting Minutes
April 12, 2005
Attendees: Faith Klareich (FK), Doug Beard (DB), Carl Henn (CH), Gerald Leighton (JL), Tolulope Odunlami (TO), Geoff Sanders (GS), Jaskaran Singh (JS) and Nate Wall (NW)
Absent: Alicia Hosmer (AH)
Agenda:
1. Welcome, News and Agenda Review
2. Review and Approval of 3/8 Meeting Minutes
JL moves, GS seconds to adopt minutes. Minutes approved.
3. Procedures for Issue Papers
JL mentioned that when EC finalizes an issue paper on which there is not unanimous EC approval, there should be an attached minority report or dissension paper. Also, if there has been negotiation between other Board & Commissions or City Staff, there should be a conference report to document this process. FK concurs.
JL dissents on the issue of immediate tree removal without notification for imminent hazard trees as stated in the EC’s final tree maintenance paper.
FK reviewed need for prioritization to handle issue papers. CH agrees that: 1) there should be a process for prioritization; 2) we should look not only at issues currently on the table, but get new ideas as well; 3) we don’t need a final report for consideration by the group – a synopsis of the idea is good enough; and 4) notion of minority report worthwhile – this may allow EC to move forwards more easily without the need for unanimous approval.
JL feels that a sub-committee should perform a cost-benefit analysis (CBA) on the issues to help determine priority. CH thinks the entire EC should rank issues, to be pursued in that order by the sub-committee. FK thinks that before we perform something time-intensive like a CBA, we should be able to prioritize based on objective criteria, such as: Is it City-wide? Across multiple neighborhoods? Big environmental impact? Etc. GS likes the concept of sub-groups, and doesn’t think there needs to be prioritization guidelines.
- Issue Paper subgroup will consist of CH, JL and GS. Discussion of specific criteria is deferred for now.
JL mentioned that before additional time and energy is spent on issue papers, we should determine what type of feedback the EC would receive from the M&C.
- FK / NW to contact Councilmember Hall and get his opinion on M&C feedback
4. Commission Size and Vacancies
There is still at least one opening left on the Commission (with the possibility of more positions being created, depending on the discussion of Commission size). FK recapped the diversity of disciplines on the EC, and the need to maintain diversity.
- NW to present all active applications for discussion at the May meeting.
- Commissioners to solicit additional applications from community.
5. Green Building
TO mentioned that much of building code in Rockville is inspection-specific. FK wondered about possible training for building inspectors on Green Building principles.
JL says that a problem with “green buildings” is that this rating is based on design and not operation.
General points for further Green Building discussion:
- What type of policy does Rockville want / need?
- What incentives are there for compliance? High-performance / energy-efficiency?
- Make sure other City policies will allow for Green Bldg, or need revision
6. EC Outreach
FK mentioned that we might want a sub-group for education and outreach: this could serve to make the EC more visible, raise public awareness on issues that the EC would like to push forwards, institutionalize the Environmental Excellence Awards, perhaps create a Rockville Earth Day event, pursue additional Environmental Summits, etc.
7. Staff Update
8. Wrap-up and Adjourn
