Environmental Council Meeting
Monday, March 14, 2005
Old Chapel 401 ~ 4:30 p.m.
Present: Connie Leach Bisson (Vice Chair), Steve Trombulak, Anne Knowles, Diane Munroe, Charlotte Tate, Brenda Ellis, Sara Dewey, Clare O'Reilly, Louis Paolella, David Wright, Kelly Blynn
Missing: Nan Jenks-Jay (Chair), Sharai Lewis-Gruss, Dalal Al-Abdulrazzak, Whitney Creed, Olivia Katz, Makely Lyon, John Reed
Guests: Thomas Hand, Nick Benjamin
Connie chaired the meeting inNan's absence.
- Announcements
No announcements shared.
- Minutes ofFebruary 28, 2005
The Minutes of February 28th were approved as written.
- Recycling Update
Connie reported that Missy Beckwith had reported back to her that Luther Tenny, Assistant Director of Facilities Management, was supportive of re-testing the outdoor recycling program using existing receptacles and he was inventorying the number of half rounds. Luther will work with the Landscape crew to determine the most active outdoor trash receptacles for a pilot test this spring. Luther will also explore the possibility of modifying the flap so that it is completely divided as this might improve the separation of recyclables from trash. Signage and education need to be part of this program and who will be responsible for this has yet to be determined. Brenda suggested that it would be good to send an e-mail to faculty and staff when the program is reintroduced explaining the outdoor recycling collection system. EC members were appreciative of Missy and Luther' quick response to the discussion with the Environmental Council.
- Other Business (moved up on the agenda)
Charlotte shared that as a resident of South Street, she had been invited to attend a meeting describing a planned development of retirement housing south of Porter Hospital and the Helen Porter Nursing Home. At the meeting, Charlotte learned that the proposed development will involve about 40 acres of land leased to the hospital by the College and involves about 100 units (80 single family; 17 rooms in an Inn; and 16 rooms in a memory loss facility).
Charlotte raised the issue with Environmental Council because she feels that this project directly relates to the Lands Subcommittee and the draft policy. Is this the way we want to be using College lands? And, as College land, should development be required to follow the College's Guiding Principles?
Steve noted that the Environmental Council has been asking that the College enhance the filter on how college lands are used. Charlotte stated that she feels that the College, as stewards of this land, should be involved in this planning process. Brenda suggested that we invite Ron to the next meeting to discuss it.
Steve felt that the proposed development project should be discussed by the Lands Subcommittee.
Connie will contact Nan, summarize this discussion and the EC's request that the Lands Subcommittee meet to discuss this issue and report back to the EC at its first meeting in April (Wednesday, April 13th). It was suggested that Ron be invited to this meeting. If Ron is not available for this meeting then a subset of the EC should schedule a time to meet with Ron to discuss the integration of the Guiding Principles into this land development project. Tom Corbin was the College's representative at the meeting that Charlotte attended so it might be useful for the Lands subcommittee to invite Tom to their meeting.
- Student Parking Fee
Clare introduced Thomas Hand and Nick Benjamin from the Sunday night group (a.k.a. Middlebury Climate Campaign). She said they were not ready to make a formal proposal to the EC but they wanted to discuss some of their thinking about the fund. One option would be to start a student organization to manage the fund; another would be to manage the fund in conjunction with the Environmental Grants. This could be a two tiered funding mechanism with the Environmental Grants serving as Phase I (shorter term, smaller amounts of money) and Phase II for Loans/sustaining funds. The students are concerned that President Liebowitz's support for and financial backing of the Environmental Grants program might dissipate if the student parking fee monies are dedicated to this program.
Members of the group have discussed management of the fund with the Student Investment Committee (SIC). They learned that SIC would have to revise their constitution to take on another fund and there did not seem to be much interest in doing so.
The model for this fund is a program at Harvard where the emphasis is on direct investment in the university into things such as energy efficiency and then tracking a savings or return of investment through reduced operating costs. http://www.greencampus.harvard.edu/gclf
Nick noted that if they were to recommend a connection of the student fees to the Environmental Grant program, they would want the grant program to be available year round. The student fees could generate about $100,000 annually. After further discussion, Steve suggested that the funds required management rather than investment – minimal portfolio management. Connie suggested that if some percentage like 50% of the annual fees were managed and 50% were available for loans, that the interest from the managed funds could be dedicated to Environmental Grants.
Some concerns were raised about entering in to projects requiring follow through beyond the years that a student will be present on campus. Does that restrict students from applying for loan funds? This is the case at Harvard but is not preferred for Middlebury. A suggestion was made that within the application, a plan and sign off would be necessary from a responsible entity that would adopt responsibility for the project once students graduate.
Clare suggested that she would like to meet with Nan, Charlotte and Connie to explore in greater detail various scenarios for administering the fund. Connie offered to arrange for someone from Harvard's Green Campus project to participate by phone in the meeting if desired.
There was a brief discussion about a timeline for moving the proposal forward. It was suggested that students talk with Pieter Broucke, Chair of the Campus Facilities and the Environment Task Force about its inclusion in their T.F. report. These reports are due May 19th and soon thereafter under the review of President Liebowitz. Clare asked if the fee could begin next fall and Steve responded that he thought the earliest likely start would be with students beginning in fall '06.
Connie concluded the discussion by saying that the EC would look forward to reviewing a proposal at its next meeting. The students would like an endorsement of the Student Parking Fee proposal to carry with them to a meeting with the Community Council.
- Pedestrian Campus
Steve shared that he will be finalizing a revision of the Pedestrian Campus definition and the storyboard of components. He thanked those who had submitted comments and indicated he would entertain additional thoughts for another 24 hours but would then be sending the documents to the Task Force.
The Pedestrian Campus subcommittee will now focus on the third part of their charge: Specific strategies to improve bicycle transportation at Middlebury College. The subcommittee is interested in getting an inclusive list from students, staff, and faculty of everything that would make bicycling better on campus. Any and every idea from the specificity of a bike rack at this location to free bike maintenance at the bike shop downtown. Steve and Brenda will write something up for Midd Points. Students suggested that seeking input with a "survey" collected by students circulating through the dining hall at lunch and dinner is fairly effective.
Brenda noted that there was nothing in the document addressing parking. What about lost parking when Old Chapel Road changes as part of the shift to a pedestrian campus? Staff desires proximate parking. Staff may also be worried that there may be disincentives connected to this such as parking fees for staff. Will there be changes coming down the pipeline that will negatively impact them?
Steve responded that he was not sure that this is a topic that should be addressed by the Pedestrian Campus Committee. He noted that keeping parking spaces in the center of campus does not support a pedestrian campus model. Steve acknowledged that constituencies can raise concerns in appropriate forums but that he does not believe that it is the role of the Pedestrian Campus Committee to negotiate this. Their charge is to define what makes a pedestrian campus.
Anne shared that she is missing a vision of the whole campus. "Don't you have to build spatial logic into what you are doing?" Clare shared that she is involved in some mapping work for a GIS class that might assist with this.
- Mini Environmental Grants
Connie referenced the Mini Grant Summary sheet that was sent out with the agenda describing the 13 grants proposals. EC members had also received an e-mail from Nan indicating that she had reviewed the summary sheet and would fund all 13 grants if that were the desire of the Environmental Council. Connie explained that there should have been a proposal from each of the 5 Commons for clothes drying racks and that she felt it was appropriate to support the proposal as being inclusive of all 5 Commons. A motion was made and seconded to fund all 13 proposal and the motion carried unanimously.
- Next meeting
There was a brief discussion about whether to hold the next meeting on Monday, March 28th or Wednesday, March 30th. The preference of those present was to hold the meeting on MONDAY, March 28th.