Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2019-02-26-SLC-min Town of Lexington Sustainable Lexington Committee Minutes of Meeting of February 26, 2019 A meeting of the Sustainable Lexington Committee (SLC) was held at Cary Hall. A quorum of six was present. Members Present: Cells Brisbin, Rick Reibstein, Todd Rhodes, Mark Sandeen, Dan Voss, Charlie Wyman Members Absent: Marcia Gens Other Attendees: Joe Pato (Board of Selectmen) Paul Chernek Alan Sherman Ricki Pappo Chris Arens Lin Jensen The meeting was called to order at 7:00 pm. 1. Plastic Waste Warrant articles (Chris Arens and Lin Jensen) • The two representatives of the Lexington Public Schools Green Teams provided a presentation of the plan for the two warrant articles. • Warrant Article 30: Polystyrene Phase-Out o The article originally focused on EPS and rigid PS utensils, but the group is now only planning to focus on EPS. o The group is planning to meet with the Committee on Disabilities next week to discuss the committee's view on the availability of straws for individuals that need them to drink. The group plans to have language in the article that allows facilities to provide straws to individuals that need them for health reasons. o Todd Rhodes voiced support for their plan not to focus on rigid PS utensils at this time. • Warrant Article 31: Straw/Stirrer Phase-Out o There will be exemptions for health needs (re: straws). o They will meet with the Commission on Disabilities next week. • They have met with the Chamber of Commerce and are waiting for feedback. • The committee voted to support both Warrant Article 30 and 31. 2. Update on Previous Warrant Articles (Ricki Pappo) • Article 9: Resolution to have the Town Manager work with Human Resources to assess whether to a new position can be established for a Sustainability Director. • Article 8: The Sustainability Fund will likely be Indefinitely Postponed because there is not a clear funding mechanism for how to make it work. Pagel of 5 3. Update on Previous Warrant Articles (Dan Voss) • Article 36: Hold discussion until after discussing the Integrated Building Policy. • Dan said that the article will be presented as a resolution and will focus on existing buildings. 4. Integrated Design Policy (Mark Sandeen) • The Town Manager provided a new draft of the Integrated Building Design Policy. The committee edited this latest draft and made the following recommendations: ■ In the Purpose section—in bullet points 1 and 4 —recommended that the purpose of the policy should be focused on both the design and operation of our new buildings. ■ In the Purpose section—recommended the reinsertion of the statement that this policy is intended to be compliant with 2014 Town Meeting Warrant Article 33. ■ In the Scope section of the policy—recommended that the Elected Boards should be able to exempt certain projects without first getting a recommendation from PBC. ■ In the Policy section - recommended adding a first step at the beginning of the "Policy" section that identifies the importance of setting specific targets at the very beginning of the project and a step at the end to make it clear that the DPF is responsible to monitoring the building's performance over its life. The recommended text is provided below. 1. Prior to initiating any building design activities or selection of design team,the project stakeholders shall establish specific targets for the project that consider each of the Integrated Building Design Goals as defined in Attachment A.The targets shall be approved by the Elected Board(s). 7.The Department of Public Facilities shall be responsible for monitoring and reporting building performance throughout the life of the building to ensure that the Integrated Building Design Goals continue to be met. ■ Recommended deleting the line from the "Policy" section that states: "The goals established in this policy are subject to the project having an adequate budget and project delivery schedule to execute this policy." The committee felt that the new step 1 we have recommended ("Prior to initiating...) and the introductory statement "The Town will design, construct, and operate its buildings to achieve the highest, economically viable, performance standards for health, energy, and resilience." address that point. ■ In the Policy section regarding the Design Team selection process — recommended that the Design Team selection process should require that the Design Team have demonstrated experience in designing facilities that would meet the requirements of this Integrated Building Design Policy. ■ In the Policy section—recommended removal of the "strive to"language regarding the appointment of a member of the Sustainable Lexington Committee to the PBC. We also reiterated our earlier recommendation from a previous Sustainable Lexington meeting that we felt it was critical that the Page 2 of 5 Sustainable Lexington member of the PBC should be a full voting member of the PBC. ■ In the Attachment A: Goals - recommended removing the term "Retro Commissioning" and replace it with "Performance Monitoring". We also edited the language in that goal to make it clear that the objective is to monitor performance and only require recommissioning when gaps are identified and recommissioning is needed. 5. Solid Waste Master Plan (Charlie Wyman/Rick Reibstien) • The state is in the process of developing a Solid Waste Master Plan. The state is asking for comments on the plan. Charlie and Rick presented a draft of recommended language for comments to come from the Sustainable Lexington Committee. • The committee discussed the draft and identified that the comments should come from the Board of Selectmen or Town Manager rather than the committee. • The committee agreed that the draft should be updated and sent to the Board of Selectmen for approval after the Board's March 19th EL Harvey visit. The meeting concluded at 9:30 pm. Page 3 of 5 Attachement A: Draft Comments on Solid Waste Master Plan At https://www.mass.gov/guides/solid-waste-master-plan: The Massachusetts General Laws C gpter ,6 Section 2 , requires the Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP) to develop and maintain a comprehensive statewide master plan for solid waste management, which the agency updates on a ten- year planning cycle. MassDEP has begun the process of developing a new Master Plan to guide solid waste management through the coming decade,from 2020 to 2030. As part of its informal Solid Waste Master Plan public input process, the agency is seeking your questions, comments, and suggestions. Please email: dep.s assoq Proposed comments —draft. Sustainable Lexington, a committee of the town of Lexington, wishes to respectfully suggest a focus on the creation of markets for recyclable materials and the resumption of assistance to town staff across the Commonwealth to work to encourage life-cycle purchasing commensurate with post-use recovery. The Commonwealth should revive the intention that once created the Chelsea Center for Recycling and Economic Development, and rectify the mistake of ending support for that effort. The investment in creating a "circular economy" should be recognized as an initiative that will create local jobs as well as reduce costs for communities and impacts on the environment. Massachusetts will not likely achieve the source reduction goals set in its master plans unless the state invests in building markets for materials reuse. The international market is volatile. Recent plummeting should teach us a lesson that we should not rely on other countries taking our waste. Shipping waste long distances is not environmentally sustainable. The Commonwealth should invest in creating the circular economy that recovers materials, and in doing so locally in order to create jobs and reduce transportation impacts. Research and development on how to reuse—not just manage—our wastes —and how to translate that knowledge into research and development of products designed for reuse— is the long-term answer to our problems. In order to achieve this, the effort must also include toxics and compostable removal efforts, so that what remains for recycling is not contaminated or difficult to manage. The state should engage in efforts to steer consumers away from buying items that are difficult to recycle and in favor of substitute products and services that can be. The state should help establish sites for receiving and processing materials for reuse. We recommend the establishment of a special commission to examine how to accomplish these ends and to foster cooperative research on creating markets and changing purchasing. The commission could examine the full costs of continuing as we are and make clear the value of the investment we need and the opportunities we can capture. The state should convene meetings of municipal waste staff and associated Page 4 of 5 citizen and expert advisors in a series of public discussions to increase attention to the problems and potential solutions and the best methods of investing in them. Economic development and waste recovery go hand in hand. The state's role in changing consumption was initiated years ago but momentum has been lost. Government must again become active in shaping the market, which has failed to evolve away from the wasteful through-put economy. Government intervention to bring about a circular economy is feasible and should be resumed. Previous actions by the state to help communities were good investments, but they were insufficient to meet the needs of transformation. It is responsible for the state to act to favor products and services that can be part of an economy that recovers and does not waste its input materials. It is irresponsible for the state to act as if the market by itself will create this, after witnessing the stalling and reversal of progress on recycling in recent years. However, we believe that progress can be quickly regenerated and urge the state to recognize the wisdom of investing in this effort. Page 5 of 5