Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAir Quality Advisory Board - Minutes - 07/30/2002MINUTES CITY OF FORT COLLINS AIR QUALITY ADVISORY BOARD REGULAR MEETING 281 N. COLLEGE AVE. July 30, 2002 For Reference: Eric Levine, Chair 229-5225 Eric Hamrick, Council Liaison 226-4824 Lucinda Smith, Staff Liaison 224-6085 Board Members Present Nancy York, Jim Dennison, Mandar Sunthankar, Katie Walters, Everett Bacon, Eric Levine Board Members Absent Conrad Van Dyke, Linda Stanley Staff Present Natural Resources Department: Lucinda Smith, Sarah Fox, Terry Klahn, Michelle Pawar, Zoe Shark, Brian Woodruff Transportation: Ron Phillips Guests Cheryl Asmus The meeting was called to order at 4:45. Long Range Transportation Capital Funding, Ron Phillips Phillips provided a slide presentation outlining Transportation funding issues including proposals to provide the needed funding for transportation projects. He said the City is responsible for 3 areas of public transportation, 1) Maintenance, 2) Transit, and 3) Capital Construction. He said that today's most pressing problem is congestion in the City's transportation system. Discussion • York: What percent do the feds pay for street? • Phillips: They pay zero for streets. All of the federal money goes to the state, and is used on state highways. We don't get any of that. We do get CMAQ funds out of the federal highway administration pot that is used on intersection projects. There must be air quality benefits. • York: Are any federal funds used for bike/pedestrian projects? • Phillips: We get enhancement funds for the bike/ped projects. • York: Are those direct to the City, or through the MPO? • Phillips: Through CDOT. The projects are prioritized and acted on by the MPO, they but they don't handle the funds. • Bacon: What about transit funds, do they come directly to the City? • Phillips: Yes, most of them. • Sunthankar: Would the general fund share end up being the same as it is now? • Phillips: No, it would be a million dollars more. • Sunthankar: How would you replace that million dollars? • Phillips: There would be have to be a re -prioritization of City services. Air Quality Advisory Board July 30, 2002 Page 2 of 7 • Sunthankar: Is that feasible? • Phillips: It's hard for Council to make cuts in other programs, but we wouldn't discuss it as a possibility if it wasn't feasible. • York: Is the transportation maintenance fee the same for businesses and residences? • Phillips: That's not the proposal. But, what came from the Chamber of Commerce is everyone to pay the same amount of $2.10. Our proposal is based on trip generation factors, similar to the street overseeing fee. • York: Is there any kind of adjustment for someone who doesn't have a car? • Phillips: No, they are still served by streets, mail delivery, groceries, UPS. • Bacon: What's next? • Phillips: The Council will discuss it at the next regular meeting on August 20. The proposal is that a resolution putting this on the ballot will be acted on by Council at the September 3, 2002 meeting. Once that's done, we as staff will have to pull off our active information sharing. We can respond to requests for information, but won't be able to campaign. • York: What the chance that there will be just one proposal put to the voters? • Phillips: You're talking about the bundling issue. Some folks have suggested that the ''/< cent sales tax, and the 1% excise tax should be two separate items. Others suggest they should be put into one item, and acted on as a pair. I've heard Council is leaning in that direction. That will be discussed on August 20. We are at a critical point in our federal funding for the Mason Street Corridor. If we don't have a local share of funding identified there's an excellent chance we'll lose our recommended rating. We have to convince Congress to earmark our project. I think the proposals should be acted upon separately. • York: Will there be vocal opposition to the excise tax from folks who have a lot of money? • Phillips: That's a broader statement than I would make. There are some folks who strongly support Council's proposal and strongly support the excise tax. I don't know that the Chamber of Commerce represents the entire business community. • Levine: Does the Transportation Department have a handle on what percent of transportation costs, and projected costs are being funded by new development at this point and time? Every new development impacts College and Shields, and other major arterioles. Do we still have a handle on what the actual costs will be? • Phillips: With the street oversizing fee and the developers share of building the local street portion of new streets, we're very close to 100% of development paying its own way. There's vmt growth from existing residences that we have to consider too. If my son or daughter turns 16 and starts driving, that's not development growth. We're trying to make some accommodations in all of those things. • Levine: The general point is it would be desirable to get a real transportation system, and it wouldn't be unfair to assess those costs. Public transportation would look cost effective in those terms. • York: We are dedicating the vast majority into facilitating motor vehicles. It's been confirmed that in highly polluted areas there's premature death, hospitalization and chronic illnesses. There's no vision to take us away from motor vehicles. • Phillips: What the committee has tried to do is develop a proposal that is as balanced as possible. This proposal has a very significant portion dedicated to alternative modes. From my point of view this is a balanced approach. • Levine: If we stop growing tomorrow would you expect the vmt to continue to rise, if so, by what percent? Air Quality Advisory Board July 30, 2002 Page 3 of 7 • Phillips: I would expect it to continue to rise because that's the trend. • Levine: If we stop growing tomorrow would you expect the level of service to continue, drop, or mostly stay the same? • Phillips: It depends on the growth of vmt from the existing population. If it continues to grow it would affect the level of service. • Levine: It seems our level of service is deteriorating rapidly. We're scrambling to keep up. A level of service drop is the same to me as a new tax. • Phillips: I suppose I have a different way of looking at it, but I understand your point of view. • Bacon: New growth is paying in some part for all of these. New growth pays sales tax, excise, and transportation. I see a lot of development fees in all four of these pots of money. • York: My concern goes to air quality. At what point do we start looking at air quality in terms of toxicity, and make some changes in our transportation code? • Phillips: I agree philosophically on alternative transportation. In my job I have to deal with the realities of what's feasible. What we're proposing will help air quality because it will help to move traffic so it's not sitting and idling, so it's not putting out as much of the harmful emission. I don't have all of the answers. • York: It's not all about this tax. It's about human health, all creatures. Health is the highest quality of life. When you have someone who falls ill, it affects the whole family. We need to have criteria, and measure the quality of the air. If people understood the connection they would opt for the alternatives. hi the Air Quality Survey it says that something on the order of 72% of people were willing to change their life style to improve the air. People are willing to ride bikes if its safe. I would encourage you to review the air quality survey. • Phillips: I agree with your concerns, but I don't know that I agree with everything you say. We've made improvements in the last years, and continue to steadily make improvements. 2002 Outdoor Air Quality Survey Results, Cheryl Asmus Asmus provided a power point presentation outlining the survey and providing the results of the survey. Discussion • Bacon: Were their any questions about small engines, scooters, lawn mowers, etc.? • Asmus: Those are recommendations you might want to give to staff, to add to a future survey. • Woodruff: I see that 73% of the people strongly agree to paying to keep their cars tuned up, but they say that they're not willing to pay to keep up someone else's vehicle. • Levine: That could be the most cost effective way to clean up the air. • Bacon: When I first moved to Colorado it cost me $800 to register my car. We need to look at incentives for purchasing newer, cleaner cars. Right now there's a dis-incentive to buy new cars. • Walters: That's a national problem. • Bacon: In Texas it's based on the weight of the car. It's a big air quality loser. • York: I find it interesting that 32% mention having someone suffering from a respiratory ailment. How has that changed overtime? • Smith: We just added that question. • Sunthankar: It's not necessarily the air quality. A significant factor is the lower immunity level of the general population. Air Quality Advisory Board July 30, 2002 Page 4 of 7 • Dennison: Doesn't it imply they would like the government to do something about it, but they don't necessarily expect it? • Levine: I believe the perception right now is accurate, and it kind of reinforces my own perception. I know the City can do something. • York: Maybe we should do a report to City Council. • Levine: The City is good at gathering information and taking surveys. But, when it comes to legislating action, or putting money into programs, the City doesn't walk the talk. • Asmus: I've gotten to the point of having a new step in the procedure. I'm not ok with giving out information and walking out the door. It needs to be useable. • Shark: We can use this information to target campaigns to certain people. We look at the folks who responded. It helps us understand basic feelings. We can build that into our messages. We know how willing they are to take action. • Levine: I understand how staff uses the information. We have all of these historical surveys of what the people want. I think we have a pretty good indication over a long historical period. The folks in Fort Collins would like to do what our AQPP says. Do we need to initiate different policies? I think so. • York: I think we should measure the air. • Sunthankar: Do we have actual data? • Levine: Of course we do, the Mobility Report Card. We can't wait till the air measures bad. • Sunthankar: We do need to take measure, but we need to use this data cautiously. • Dennison: We have very little measured data, we have extensive data on a small number of chemicals. We have no idea what people are exposed to inside. • Levine: We have an AQAP for the City. For the first time it said our goal of air quality not deteriorating will not be met. That was a staff prediction, our air quality will get worse. I don't believe there were any alternatives, or contingencies. • Smith: The AQAP is the strategic plan for meeting that goal. It was given a lot of consideration. • Levine: We had numbers that were presupposed. We need to address the fact the numbers were way off. • Smith: There's not only the AQAP and it's indicators. There's also City plan, and it's indicators. There are broader programs in place. We've never asked recently what people think about our goal of continual improvement. • Levine: City Plan did have one real trigger, vmt growth. It says it triggered a special review process. I don't know what that means. • Dennison: What are we doing about collecting vmt data these days. • Smith: The MPO completed a household survey using a slightly different format than the Mobility Report Card. • York: I think the AQAB should look at the information and make a report to City Council. • Levine: The last time we had a tv show dealing with the air quality issue, Ann Azari was mayor. • Walters: This points out we're getting to a point where it could turn into apathy. That's not good for Fort Collins. We don't want to get to that point. This needs to be a trigger, and we need to do something now, before it gets out of hand. • Smith: The Council received a press release that includes a summary of this survey. • Smith: Maybe we should think about a sub -committee, those who are interested could spend more time on this. It could be just one meeting, or more if necessary. Air Quality Advisory Board July 30, 2002 Page 5 of 7 Eric Levine, Katie Walters, Mandar Sunthankar and Nancy York volunteered for the committee. Minutes The minutes of the June 25, 2002 were unanimously approved. Radon Mitigation in New Construction, Michelle Pawar Pawar said that since the last meeting Brian Woodruff has agreed to be the project lead on this issue. We've put together a task force representative of medical and health experts in the region, including, but not limited to, Larimer County and the Poudre Health District. We envision the task force will meet for about 8 weeks. We would like to focus on the Fort Collins area. Brian will manage the process. We'll do public outreach and some level of public involvement. We're open to your suggestions. If it's determined that we'll move forward with a recommendation to require mitigation we can still team with the three year building code update process in January. Dennison: Having this effort to establish a local attitude is an excellent idea. The terminology is a little broad, or vague. If it's something like how many lung cancer cases might occur on a annual basis, or what would the economic cost be, those would seem to be the types of information the representatives may want to have. It sounds like risk assessment engineering. Is the expertise of the medical representatives in that area, or are there other people who might be useful to you? Pawar: I was going to invite all of you for input. What types of questions should we pose to the task force? What questions answer the problem statement? Maybe you're right, and we should consider adding others to the task force. Our objective is to establish local support based on health and medical expertise. Is there compelling data relative to this that support the City considering mandatory radon mitigation? We would welcome your input. York: Do you have suggestions about who else should be included? Dennisons: In terms of the potential for radon, there are a couple epidemiologists who might be considered. If I were a council member I would be interested in hearing how many cases per year, economic costs, mitigation costs, data like what is the typical cost for lung cancer care. Those are the sort of things that go into a cost benefit analysis. There shouldn't be a bias that pushes it one direction or another. My gut feeling is the cost benefit of requiring testing is clear. Woodruff: The issue is shall we require new buildings to have a radon mitigation systems built in. Levine: There's a packet item from the 1995/1996 radon task force, that ran for over 12 months. I thought it was very comprehensive. We met as much, or more, of the SDIC process as what is being proposed yet again by the City. Why do this again if the process was thorough. What specific shortfalls were in that lengthy process? As far as participants there were realtors, builders, and the scientific community. There was outreach to almost every community group. Why do it again? We may have a little bit more health data, but not really very much. Pawar: The primary reason we're revisiting it is to make it more timely, and more up to date with the current building code process. Where it came from is the smoking outreach and seeing an opportunity to determine public process. This doesn't set back the schedule. Fundamentally, nothing changes. Air Quality Advisory Board July 30, 2002 Page 6 of 7 Levine: The original radon group looked at a couple of possible regulatory actions. The main focus was on testing, but it also considered required mitigation. At the end of the day the group was not unanimous. The groups were split along somewhat predictable lines. Business tended to not be in favor. I'm a realist. I don't see the final outcome being very much different than what happened before. If the outcome is split like it was before what does the City intend to do? • Pawar: It would be irresponsible to try to answer that question when we don't know what's going to happen. • Levine: Does the City require a basic consensus? • Pawar: Our primary objective is to provide a basis for good thorough public process. We don't have a predetermined goal. • Dennison: Is it fair to say the purpose of the task force is to better answer the question that John Fischbach asked in response to a request from David Roy. Do you think it's so you can provide a more concrete answer? • Pawar: That's part of it. We made this recommendation before the request. We didn't reference the SDIC chart. I would like to provide current data and discussion so it's not based on a discussion from six years ago. We can say it's something that has been determined to be urgent and further supported by national data. If we'd move forward right now, we'd have a flawed process. • Levine: I want to include this first memo that was in response to David Roy's questions. I was appalled. Diane Jones said there is no evidence that radon has been responsible for a single death in Fort Collins. Eric Hamrick sent this to me. I wrote back and said that this is not correct in my opinion, and that the City needs to correct that data. I haven't been convinced in the City's process addressing this issue. When I saw this my level of confidence in the City to address these issues and run the program dropped. I'm glad the second memo came out somewhat correcting the memo that was sent to Council. But the correction doesn't say that where the problem of radon is 6% nationally, it about 76% locally. • Dennison: I'm not sure we should belabor it. What's your feeling on the validity of the response, was it ok, or should it have been done differently? • Pawar: In the context of the week when that question was answered I was out, and John and Greg were out. Generally we're more thorough in our responses. Generally we have a standard for making those responses. I won't make excuses, but there were circumstances around it. • Dennison: In my view it wasn't a good question, and it wasn't a good answer. I wouldn't belabor the point too much. • York: Will the previous subcommittee's information be included this time? • Pawar: Yes, it will be part of the data set. • Woodruff: The subcommittee's recommendations are not binding. • Walters: How plausible is it to get information like how many deaths can be attributed. The only way you're going to get good data that says x-percent of lung cancers were attributed to radon is to narrow it down. • Pawar: Our ambition with the task force is to have an articulated set of questions that relate to if radon mitigation should be required in new homes. We're hoping to give attribution to local health experts, and others, to help us substantiate a compelling reason to require Air Quality Advisory Board July 30, 2002 Page 7 of 7 mitigation. I want to be careful to not in any way give the impression that staff is not objective. We're not trying to influence anyone. We're messengers of data and information. • Sunthankar: Have we looked at other cities where they have introduced this? What did they look at? Are you aware of any city that might have done it? • Dennison: The County has a program. • Fox: It's a subdivision requirement. • Levine: There's a required test before the certificate of occupancy is issued. It's a three point program. • Dennison: There must be other cities that have mandatory testing and mitigation. • Pawar: We did a pretty thorough survey of cities and counties in the state that have smoking ordinances. This is a similar process. • Levine: Obviously there's a radon problem in lots of old buildings. Sarah's old program was starting to address that. We have to address the entire problem. The data shows reasonable cause for a development policy to address this. Second Hand Smoke, AQAB Input Sarah Fox distributed the survey and asked board members to complete and return them to the Natural Resources Department. Agenda Planning Not reviewed. Adjourn The meeting was adjourned at 7:45 p.m.