Minutes - Environmental Policy Board - 12/05/2005

Home

Environmental Specialist Bacon asked how the preferred versus acceptable category could be credited. He asked for clarification whether it meant choice or credits. Zoning & Recycling Coordinator Anderson explained that preferred species have a multiplier of 0.65 while acceptable species have a multiplier of 0.5, so you can see that preferred species receive higher credit. He noted that it was supposed to be an incentive. Board Member Max proposed to make a bigger differential between the preferred and acceptable species, and really give incentive to the preferred category. Chairperson McDilda stated that Zoning & Recycling Coordinator Anderson will have a conversation with Asst. Com. Dev. Dir. Sylvia Frolik and Com. Dev. Dir. Patrick Tmdgeon and report back to the Environmental Policy Board regarding this matter. Chairperson McDilda suggested to members of the Board, because the time was nearing 9:00 p.m., and in light of the fact the meetings were typically on a timetable of two hours, to open it up for a motion to reassess the agenda for the remainder of the meeting. Board Member Olds asked Zoning & Recycling Coordinator Anderson what the caseload looked like for January. Zoning & Recycling Coordinator Anderson stated priority should be made for the 2006 work plan. Board members discussed the anticipated cases for the next year. Members of the Board referred to their calendars and concurred that a meeting in January could occur to finish up Cases #5 and #6. Motion by Board Member Olds to table consideration of Cases #5 and #6 until January of 2006. Board Member Max stated his preference was to have another meeting in December to finish up the meeting agenda before the end of the year. Board Member Bentz concurred with Board Member Max. Chairperson McDilda stated he would like to appoint the Chair and Vice Chair before the end of the year. He asked for further discussion around the motion. Board Member Sibilski suggested it would be ideal if the City Council liaison could be present when discussing the 2006 work plan. Board Member Olds asked for clarification about the caseload for January. Zoning & Recycling Coordinator Anderson stated that next year's caseload was dependent on the new work plan. He stated that wrap up discussions could be done at a later date for the EXPO and update on the buffer situation in January. He stated that as a Board, they can meet twice a month, but it wouldn't be staffed or have a minute taker. Board Member Max stated that depending on ~vhat is put into the work plan, with two very large projects and some smaller projects, it may require a couple of meetings that involved small group subcommittees. Zoning & Recycling Coordinator Anderson concurred with Board Member Sibilski's comment that it would be preferred to have liaison City Council Member Strommen present when the Board considered their 2006 work plan. Chairperson McDilda also concurred. Environmental Policy Board / December 5, 2005 Page 6 of 8