03-17-2010 ECC MIN - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

• What is the impact for new or existing businesses? What can be done to help/improve? Is it helpful for partners? Environmental Administrator Haug added that they wanted to make sure that the mission statement is what it should be. They made one change by removing the word "consumer" to make it more toward education in general. Commissioner Rohlf shared his thoughts on several topics. He stated that he had no issue with Project Conserve as a demonstration, but cautioned the commission about getting too far into recycling and water conservation. An expressed concern was that evolution toward more sustainable or "green" was not a conscious decision by the commission. He worried that the commission might be losing the focus of energy and encouraged discussion. Commissioner Rohtf stated that the "value added" for the City has been identified but felt the "value added" must be identified for the partners. He questioned what it is now. Finally, he discussed Demonstration site promotions. Commissioner Rohlf stated that promoting demonstrations was not the way it used to be. The Commission used to identify possible demonstrations, let the projects be demonstrated, and then those that were environmentally and economically valid were the ones that the Energy City Commission supported. He added that there was a lot of emphasis on measurable results. Commissioner Rohlf finished by questioning whether the Commission broadens the focus to more than just energy. Discussion followed. Mayor Klinzing responded that there are links to "green" issues with energy that do need to be looked at. She commented upon reuse and recycling saving energy from not creating new products from virgin materials. She felt the focus is still energy and conservation. Commissioner Chuba discussed replicable energy conservation houses and adder that remodelers are the ultimate recyclers. Chair Zehringer felt that recycling cannot be eliminateo because of the energy savings associated with recycling. Commissioner Rohlf reiterated his thought that energy should be the focus rather than being too spread out or diluted. He asked that the words "resource conservation" be removed. Chair Zehringer really wanted to leave the words in the vision statement. Commissioner Steinbeck commented that energy savings should be the main focus whenever talking about the various resource conservation topics or technologies. Chair Zehringer suggested making a change to the vision statement to the effect that resource conservation is replaced with a phrase that draws a link between energy use and conservation practices. Discussion of the timeline for q~oing to the City Council was brought up by Commissioner Touchette. It's on the April 12t agenda currently. He questioned whether a revised document could be circulated electronically and approved that way (within two weeks) prior to going back to the council. Environmental Administrator Haug commented that this doesn't have to go to the Council on the 12th, but added that there is a deadline by the end of the year regarding Energy City continuing. Mayor Klinzing stated that the Council needs to be asked what they want to see regarding Energy City and the connection between the other areas that the Environmental Department focuses upon. She added that it may fend more acceptability of the Commission to the Council. Commissioners Rohlf and Touchette stated that the value added for partners is critical. At this point, Commissioner Rohlf left the meeting (1:15 p.m.). Discussion followed regarding the issue o~ "resource conservation". Mayor Klinzing stated that she didn't feel it was pulling away from the original intent. She felt the two are linked. Commissioner Touchette agreed and stated that he felt