Council Environmental Quality Committee

Summary

Meeting Overview

The Environmental Quality Committee met on February 28, 2011, at 11:00 A.M., with Blues presiding. During the meeting, the committee addressed two agenda items: a presentation on the Empower Lexington Report, which was informational in nature, and Items Referred, which was deferred to a later date. The committee took one motion to a vote and heard one public comment during the session.

Attendance

The following individuals were present at the meeting on February 28, 2012:

• Blues
• Stinnett
• Gorton
• Farmer
• Crosbie
• Myers
• McChord
• Martin
• Henson
• Lane
• Cain

No absences or late arrivals were recorded.

Votes and Decisions

The meeting concluded with one motion brought before the body.

Motion to Adjourn

Crosbie moved to adjourn the meeting 42:29. The motion was decided by voice vote and passed. There were no recorded abstentions on this motion.

Public Comment

Edward Cushy addressed the council regarding concerns about pollution exemptions and funding for environmental programs 38:38.

Mr. Cushy expressed concern that properties causing pollution through ERUs (Environmental Resource Units) and livestock waste are exempt from water quality management fees. He questioned how taxpayers will fund environmental initiatives such as Empower Lexington if polluting properties are not required to contribute financially to water quality management.

Mr. Cushy also highlighted visible pollution in local creeks and called for greater accountability from properties that generate pollution while remaining exempt from these fees.

Contested Items

Funding and Accountability for Environmental Programs

A heated discussion arose regarding the funding mechanisms and accountability structures for environmental programs. [timestamp: information not available in source materials]

The disagreement centered on concerns about tax burdens and exemptions related to environmental management. Specifically, a public commenter questioned the fairness and transparency of the water quality management fee, raising concerns about how this fee connected to broader environmental initiatives such as Empower Lexington.

The core issues included:

• The equity of tax exemptions granted to properties with pollution concerns
• The transparency of how the water quality management fee was structured and applied
• The relationship between the water quality management fee and larger environmental programs like Empower Lexington
• Whether the current funding approach fairly distributed environmental costs across the community

The outcome of this contested item is not documented in the available materials.

Empower Lexington Report

Susan Bush presented the Empower Lexington community-wide energy efficiency plan 0:00. The plan represents two and a half years of collaborative development involving input from 75 community members.

Plan Overview

The Empower Lexington initiative sets a voluntary 1% annual energy reduction target for the community. The plan identifies five key sectors as focus areas for energy efficiency improvements and emphasizes a collaborative approach to sustainable community development.

Key Components

The plan prioritizes: - Public education to build community awareness and engagement - Partnerships across sectors to implement efficiency measures - Progress tracking conducted every two years to monitor advancement toward goals

Plan Characteristics

Empower Lexington is structured as a living document rather than a mandate. This approach allows the plan to evolve and adapt as community needs and circumstances change, while providing guidance for sustainable development without imposing rigid requirements on participants.

Outcome

The presentation was informational in nature, introducing the community to the comprehensive energy efficiency plan developed through extensive stakeholder engagement.

Items Referred

The committee discussed the next steps for the Empower Lexington plan, with council members Cain, Henson, Lane, Blues, and Crosbie participating in the conversation. 38:05

The primary focus was determining how to move forward with the plan, which requires a resolution for formal support. Council members raised several questions about the plan's implementation and oversight:

• Implementation procedures and timelines
• Frequency of monitoring and progress reviews
• Public access to the complete plan document
• Potential for mandatory recycling requirements

The committee agreed to defer action on this item and schedule a review of the resolution for the next meeting on March 13. This additional time will allow members to address the raised concerns and prepare for formal consideration of the supporting resolution.