Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAir Quality Advisory Board - Minutes - 05/28/2002MINUTES CITY OF FORT COLLINS AIR QUALITY ADVISORY BOARD REGULAR MEETING 281 N. COLLEGE AVE. May 28, 2002 For Reference: Eric Levine, Chair 229-5225 Eric Hamrick, Council Liaison 226-4824 Lucinda Smith, Staff Liaison 224-6085 Board Members Present , Jim Dennison, Mandar Sunthankar, Linda Stanley, Katie Walters, Conrad Van Dyke, Eric Levine, Nancy York Board Members Absent Everett Bacon, Cassie Archuleta Staff Present Natural Resources Department: Lucinda Smith, Sarah Fox, Terry Klahn, Michelle Pawar Guests Rick Hufnagel, MPO The meeting was called to order at 4:40. Election of Officers Eric Levine was unanimously re-elected chairman. Linda Stanley was unanimously re-elected vice -chair. Second Hand Smoke Sarah Fox provided a brief description of the "Virtual Town Hall". She said it's an opportunity for people to be heard, not a scientific poll, and that it was much more successful than imagined. Michelle Pawar said as staff we felt it would be irresponsible to move forward to the study session without allowing some input process for the public. It was not intended to be scientific, it was an effort to allow for citizens to get input to us. Discussion • Sunthankar: Will there be any exposure in the Coloradoan? We could do that. Sally Bridges is writing an article on the study session. • Sunthankar: Has there been any decision if this will be on the ballot? That will probably come up at the study session. We're going in with questions; asking what they want us to do. • Walters: The Denver Post had an article. They said if it goes to a vote the tobacco industry will get involved. It's going to be scary. • Stanley: They have us targeted. They're looking at this area to see what happens. • Stanley: I would like to make sure there's some way for us as a board to reiterate what we've already said. We've already written a memo, I would like for them to re -read it. • York: If they're considering putting this on the ballot maybe we would like to offer some guidance. I don't know how it would be structured. It seems like we should put the hardest Air Quality Advisory Board May 28, 2002 Page 2 of 4 question to the public, the gold standard. • Stanley: The worse thing we could do is put something on the ballot that's weak, something that's not the gold standard. I would hate to see it go on the ballot at all. • Dennison: While I think people may support it now, if they had more information they would support it more. The real problem is the dis-information campaign put on and paid for by the tobacco industry. The public will get a lot of stuff that is hog wash. • Van Dyke: Has there been a better success rate for elections versus Council decisions with regard to enforcement. • Pawar: We're working hard to communicate to upper management and Council that this process is flawed. We were on a good road, but it's ramped up with an artificially inflated schedule. They've taken away our ability to do outreach. Are we as a community prepared to enforce a gold standard? • Levine: What are you suggesting? • Pawar: At the very least, more time. There's a sense of urgency that's not driven by science. • Levine: Doesn't every year that goes by create more health issues. • Pawar: I'm arguing the process that is being driven, I'm not saying that second hand smoke isn't a health hazard. • Sunthankar: This has been going on for several years. • Pawar: Not on the public side. Our timeline was that we had the rest of the year. I'm not countering the idea that we do this, I'm just asking if there's a way we could do it better in six months. • York: How would you proceed? • Pawar: We'd like to do a statistically valid survey. The County's survey is being challenged as biased. • Fox: What's unfortunate is that people don't believe the County's results. We have people trusting that we will be open-minded. When we're out talking with the restaurant and bar owners many have said that if this is what the community wants, so be it, as long as there has been good public process. Right now the way it's set up Council is going to get slammed by both sides. • Levine: I've been on the AQAB for eight years now. I've seen issue come up again and again. What I've seen is County staff carrying the water for this issue. The County has been begging the City to take ownership of this issue. The City wasn't moving on it year after year. I was glad to see this (hopefully for the last time) get presented. The issue itself has been around for years. If the City is having to play catch-up they're doing it with themselves, not with the public. We have three surveys, and around 60% of people say they support a smoke free ordinance. Does anyone believe those surveys are out of line with what the public thinks? • Pawar: We're not playing catch-up, but we've been put in a position where we're in a hurry. Our time to do outreach was taken away. I'm concerned about enforceability. When you look at the success rate in other communities it's the neighbors, and community. We don't have the resources to have officers or code folks out there enforcing this. • Levine: We have three surveys that indicate people are informed. I would like to see the government get out and do something. • Pawar: We feel a responsibility as an organization to do a more thorough public process. • Levine: Does staff, or anyone at this table not believe that 60% of the public is informed? Would anyone here want smoking allowed in their workplace? Air Quality Advisory Board May 28, 2002 Page 3 of 4 • Dennison: That misses the point. If you have 30% opposed, Council has to contend with that. The question is if more outreach would do something to whittle that number down? • Sunthankar: There's the politics of the whole situation. People may say that 60% agree with the ordinance, but would they want the government to interfere on one more item? A lot of people are not supporting interference of the government on new laws. • Dennison: That's one facet of how people make up their minds. If there's enough of a health risk, people will support it. There must be enough people who understand the risks. • Dennison: How much time would you like to be given? • Pawar: To do it right, the end of the summer, or early fall. • Dennison: I have a question about the enforcement issues. Would there be a significant fine? • Fox: The police say they'll enforce it if the community wants it. There must be a community that supports it. • Pawar: We have a responsibility to allow for a more thorough process for passing this. It's not the substance, it's the process. • Walters: The enforceability has fallen on the community. We're only 61% sure the community will enforce the ordinance. Maybe we should be more sure it would be 80%, or 90%. If we need more time to do a survey to be sure that if there was an ordinance it could be enforced, there's no reason not to. I don't understand having an ordinance and not making sure everyone will follow it. • Stanley: In 1984 the big issue was enforceability. It just enforced itself. But, if you think you could do a lot in six months, or six more weeks, I can live with that. I would like to see something done by the end of the year. It's a health issue, it's time to stand up and be a leader. Nancy York made the following motion: The AQAB reiterates their support to pass an ordinance to ban smoking in all enclosed public places and all work places. Secondhand smoke is a serious health hazard. Economic analyses of communities with secondhand smoke ordinances indicate no economic harm to bars and restaurants. The AQAB encourages Council to pass a strong ordinance and not refer it to a vote by the ballot. Linda Stanley seconded the motion. The motion passed with five votes in favor (Van Dyke, Stanley, Walters, York, Levine), one vote opposed (Sunthankar), and one abstention because of a possible conflict of interest (Dennison). Minutes The minutes of the April 30, 2002 were unanimously approved. Regional Transportation Authority (RTA), Rick Hufnagel, Suzette Thieman Hufnagel said he wanted to give an educational presentation to familiarize people with the MPO, explain who we are, and why we're coming to the voters to deal with transportation issues. Levine: I would like to see a breakdown of the funding shortfalls. How much are in Fort Collins or in the area, as opposed to Loveland and Greeley. Thieman: They would be a little skewed. Our direction when we did the regional plan was Air Quality Advisory Board May 28, 2002 Page 4 of 4 to put everything in the regional plan. This includes things like paving alleys. • Levine: We're hearing there are tremendous shortfalls around Windsor and Loveland because of the developments put in there. • Stanley: That's because of their land use practices. They didn't have impact fees then. • Levine: The question is who pays, and who benefits. • Thieman: That's a question the policy committee will be wrestling with. • York: Do you have projections on what it costs for maintenance when you decide to pave or widen a road? • Thieman: MPO funds are for construction only. The jurisdiction it falls under takes care of the maintenance. • Levine: Do you see the City initiative as competition? • Hufiiagel: It needs to be a mix of both. The problems cannot be solved with only a regional plan, or only a local plan. They have to be working together. • Stanley: This is really an example of growth not paying for itself. I don't believe in regional planning things. It takes them out of the hands of elected officials. It's going to cause growth, and we'll fall further behind. I have a problem with using a sales tax. • Thieman: We're limited by state legislation, it only allows us to collect money in three ways; 1) sales and use, 2) vehicle registration, and 3) visitor benefit fees. • Thieman: This money could be used to pay for projects, or used as leverage to obtain federal funds. We could use it as match money for transit or highway funds. • Levine: Land use policies and travel behavior are responsible for most of the deficiencies in transportation. If we're not correcting the land use polices it seems like we're going to get more and more behind, and be taxed at higher rates. • York: That's why I'd like to see o/m fees. Every new road carries with it a lifetime of indebtedness. There are so many things to be considered • Levine: If Windsor ran up these deficiencies, then I want Windsor to payl00%. It's impacted my quality of life. Fort Collins' policies are a good step in the right direction. I don't mind contributing to good policy. • Hufnagel: We wouldn't do projects in the middle of Windsor. We'd do something like a regional bus system. Levine requested a copy of the Power Point presentation. Air Quality Board Review Comments Levine said the comments will be reviewed at the June meeting. He also reminded members to bring packet item number five (LUTRAQ Team Update) to the next meeting. Agenda Planning Review Council six-month planning calendar Levine is concerned there is no place holder on the Council agenda for radon. Smith will schedule an AQAB presentation on Transportation Long Range Funding. Adjourn The meeting was adjourned at 7:40 p.m.