Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAir Quality Advisory Board - Minutes - 03/22/2005MINUTES CITY OF FORT COLLINS AIR QUALITY ADVISORY BOARD REGULAR MEETING 281 N. COLLEGE AVE. March 22, 2005 For Reference: Linda Stanley, Chair 493-7225 Eric Hamrick, Council Liaison 226-4824 Lucinda Smith, Staff Liaison 224-6085 Board Members Present Jassen Bowman, Kip Carrico, Eric Levine, Nancy York, Ken Moore, Linda Stanley, John Long, Cherie Trine, Dave Dietrich Board Members Absent None Staff Present Natural Resources Department: Kathy Collier, Sandy Hicks, Terry Klahn, Lucinda Smith Guests CSU Students The meeting was called to order at 5:30 p.m. ClimateWise Update I Sandy Hicks provided a brief history of the program for the benefit of the new members. She also provided a hand out summarizing the activities, results and future plans of the Climate Wise program. Kathy Collier was introduced as a new staff member working on the Climate Wise program. Collier reported to SmartTrips for about thirteen years before coming to work for Natural Resources. • Stanley: Has the funding gone up, down, or stayed the same? • Hicks: For the most part it has stayed the same. • Stanley: If you didn't have the grant would you lose the 0.5 FTE? • Hicks: There was a commitment this year that NRD would pick that up. It's an innovative program, there aren't a lot of programs like this around anymore. The state likes it because we do pollution prevention. Kathy recently found a $25,000 grant that we'll be applying for. • Collier: We want the new businesses to report better. We've talked about starting a green team on CSU campus. We're outlining standards for each level of partner and what they will receive in terms of PR and marketing. • Hicks: Most of the partner's big thing is recognition. • Stanley: I have been trying to find computer recycling information on the City's web site. I'm having a hard time. • Trine: Are there incentives to not turn the air conditioning down so low? Air Quality Advisory Board 03/22/2005 Page 2 of 9 • Hicks: That's usually a recommendation. • Trine: It seems like that would save more energy than lighting retrofits. • Hicks: The highest energy savings typically come from lighting upgrades, you see that a lot more in retail settings. • Collier: We want to improve the networking and communication. We're looking into having the partner's mentor each other. We're coming up with new Climate Wise assessment sheets for partners and staff. • York: I work at the Lincoln Center sometimes. We're undergoing lighting changes for art. I'm wondering if you consult with the City of Fort Collins. • Hicks: We've been asking if the City should be a Climate Wise partner. • Bowman: A great way to get in front of a number of small to medium businesses would be the Chamber. They have the "Leads Group" to generate business. You might want to talk to Kimberly. • Hicks: This year our marketing goal is to get the name, Climate Wise, out there. Next year we'll focus more on the specifics. • York: What will you do if a dozen new businesses want to join the program? • Hicks: We think the new levels of participation will help. Some businesses would be able to self certify. • Stanley: I would hate to see too much of that. I do like the idea of a checklist. But, it's the constant hand holding and checking in that makes it likely they'll have a commitment to the program. • Carrico: Are you doing anything to quantify the other air quality benefits? • Hicks: We specifically focus on energy, transportation and waste. The conversion factors I use are from EPA guidelines. But, the software has other air pollutants. That's a good idea. • Levine: This looks pretty good to me. You were 88% of the way to your 2010 goal in 2003. What I would like to see is the actual breakdown to the contribution. I suspect there are a couple big businesses. Dr. Harry Edwards at one time had a quarter million dollar grant from the EPA for a program doing energy audits. Is that money all dried up? • Smith: The industrial assessment center is still open. • Levine: You don't look at total emissions, just the reductions? Do they get figured in if they are reductions of potential expansions? • Hicks: No. We go into more detail. Some of the things we quantify are pretty small. • Levine: Has anyone developed a list of categories of businesses, and the types of reductions with the different types? • Hicks: Utilities has worked on this, but we haven't gotten to that point. • Levine: This looks good as far as bang for the buck. I see a need for a very comprehensive Web link list. A lot of businesses could be looking, it's fairly difficult to find one item on the City's website. Setting up the links should be fairly easy. • Bowman: With the way you collect data is there anyway to do the breakdowns quarterly for the larger companies? • Hicks: Some of them do it on a monthly or quarterly basis. There's no consistency. Most companies do it annually, or twice a year. • Dietrich: You said Utilities used to fund this. Why did they stop? • Smith: Utilities and Natural Resources initially co -funded the program. Utilities made a one time, two-year commitment. We have common goals and they thought it was a positive thing, but they never intended on -going funding. Air Quality Advisory Board 03/22/2005 Page 3 of 9 • Bowman: Have you discussed funding for Climate Wise in general? • Smith: We've thought about it. Climate Wise is potentially slated for reduced funding. We continue to look for grants. We don't have a detailed contingency plan. We're waiting to see what happens. • Stanley: What happens if a business doesn't hold up their end of the bargain? • Hicks: That's why we've thought about the levels, requiring them to do something. • Stanley: Do those who don't do anything still get the publicity? • Hicks: Not as much. • Dietrich: Have you considered a cycle; maybe after five years you're weaned off the program? • Hicks: That's a good idea. • York: They could have another status, mentors maybe. • Long: Yes, rotating so you have more room for other businesses to come on board. • Dietrich: Once they see the benefits they'll stay with the practices. • Dietrich: Is there a line about encouraging employee savings at home? • Hicks: New Belgium is doing some of that. • Collier: A lot of the partners said employees don't even know about Climate Wise. • York: Other governments are big employers. They should be partnering with the City. Maybe work with Margit. There's a lack of recycling at the Lincoln Center. You can go to public meetings and see cans thrown away. Lighting is a big thing. • Bowman: I like the incentive idea. Even a small incentive that doesn't cost lot can be something people get in to. • Trine: Does the City recycle paper? Small businesses have paper that stacks up. They never make the trip to the landfill. • Smith: Susie has looked for ways for small businesses to get assistance for recycling. They are now allowed to take recycling to Rivendell. • York: Let us know if you need us to recommend anything to Council. • Stanley: This is a program that is always on the chopping block. • Bowman: And, there's a big benefit at a small cost. City Budget Discussion Lucinda Smith said the AQAB is being asked for suggestions on the budget, especially to do with service enhancements, modification and reductions. This is not a recommendation to Council, but will go from you, through me, to the Budget office. We're waiting to see to what extent the City will embrace a concept called "Budgeting for Outcomes". My sense is we'll begin looking at this concept, but basically be doing budgeting the same way. It's really hard to know how to facilitate this discussion. When the City shifts to budgeting for outcomes it will involve input from the community. What is important? The City Manager wants to see what the community is saying. You've probably read the things that are proposed in the NRD budget cuts. The grocery tax repeal is only one factor that goes into the budget. There are still revenue shortfalls, and there's the police collective bargaining and how that will impact revenue. Two of the four scenarios cut back Climate Wise, reduce staff support for the boards and work on multi- family recycling, eliminate the Air Quality Survey, and most of the staff for the Sustainability Action Plan. • Bowman: Funding -wise, does that cover the overtime for you being here. Air Quality Advisory Board 03/22/2005 Page 4 of 9 • Smith: It's hard to figure out how much we pay for the staff time spent by Board staff liaisons. Nobody gets overtime. I work on the AQAB 10% or less of my time. • Trine: Are other boards looking at being cut? How much of a percentage do they want from Natural Resources? Are they picking on Natural Resources? • Smith: Neighborhood Resources is identified for a cut that would be 100%. I don't know how much weight to give this. There will be a lot of political processing happening if the grocery tax is repealed. It could be one thing you use to shape your recommendation. • Stanley: Maybe we should put the grocery tax part aside and consider if this does not pass, is there any increase in budgeting? • Smith: I don't expect increases. We're working on the assumption that we'll start from the amount of budget we started with last year. • Bowman: Do you see a loss if the grocery tax does not pass? • Smith: Possibly a contractual position. The contractual positions are potentially more vulnerable. • Levine: I suggest that you look at programs the City is committed too. One of those is the radon mitigation. Right now it's exiting the starting gate. A couple years ago we had a good presentation from the Building Department about the energy code. They learned a lot of good lessons. The main lesson was that right out of the starting gate you put all of your resources and commitment to the program. A lot of things will fall by the way -side if you don't. I suggest that be done with the radon program, and programs to replace the I/M program. • Smith: One comment on radon. Every year we receive $15,000 that we match with another $15,000. It was more or less of a shoe in. I've just learned from Brian Woodruff that this year it's going to be much more competitive. We can't assume we'll receive the funding. We're a little concerned. They may say that Fort Collins already has a well established program. • Levine: We'll be punished for success. • Stanley: Is that what would fund the possible study? • Smith: Right, the testing of homes. The details are not worked out, it's even possible it might not be done this year. • York: We need to validate that installers know what they are doing. It's a high priority to see if the passive systems are really helping people's health. • Levine: It's a dangerous mix. We have builders with no experience putting in these systems. The numbers say passive systems are pretty problematic. About 25% could be over the 4 pc. • Levine: Unlike the County we have no required, mandatory testing. We need some way to get around that basically. It's an important piece. I don't know how we get the data. • Smith: That's wrapped up in the question of doing the study. There are a lot of variables, questions of how to design this study. Have enough homes been built? We might try to look at this next year. But, I'm hearing one recommendation that the radon program is generally important, and we need to gather information on the effectiveness of the ordinance. • Trine: Beyond the technicalities, there's the policy of the City cutting out things. It's like a deception. You involve the public in a big public process and then you cut it on them. I look at that as deceptive. • Smith: Are you referring to the list of budget cut scenarios? They had to come up with something that would equal $6 million. It's possible they intentionally listed the programs the public is familiar with. Air Quality Advisory Board 03/22/2005 Page 5 of 9 • Dietrich: The public is a party to it. They are doing the voting. If they don't want to be taxed they are a party to requiring the cuts. • Bowman: As a counter point, my personal opinion about the radon program is known. From a scientific background support for the radon program will be seen as a waste of money. From my perspective that's the first one I'd put on the chopping block from within air quality. There are more important things. • Levine: I've looked at the numbers for years. The numbers show me, as far as the impacts of human deaths, that radon is the number one, largest indoor health risk. • Bowman: That is a significant debate in the international scientific community. I'm talking from that background. I think there are other important programs. If we're fighting over $15,000 that would be at the bottom of my list. • Levine: I agree with everyone giving their prioritizations. But that's one person's interpretation of science. • Dietrich: That's a debate. But, there is an ordinance for radon mitigation. It's the responsibility of the City to determine if the ordinance is effective. It does place a burden if it's not effective. • Stanley: Ozone is one area that is important. It's a targeted pollutant. I would like to see that go forward. • Stanely: An alternative to I/M is one of the things I'd like to see continued. Another thing I'd like to see is the Sustainability Action Plan. I was pretty impressed with that, it got down to the nitty-gritty. It's one way the City can have an impact. I would like to see funding for that. • York: Was the department already going to fund some of that? • Smith: It's an interdepartmental effort. This year our department was able to roll over money we didn't spend last year. The funding for 2006 is really unclear. • Bowman: Is there a breakdown of the dollar figure for individual programs? • Smith: Yes. • Trine: It seems like we pay practically nothing for the sustainability program. • Bowman: A lot of those programs pay you back. • Levine: It would be good if the City could take funds they've received and put them into other programs. • Trine: Are intermediate and higher manger salaries being accounted for, versus other programs? • Bowman: Is there some way, even conceptual, to figure out a way to put the public health benefits and reductions in health care costs into the equations? Is there a way to do that? • Smith: I believe we should do more to quantify the air quality benefits associated with the costs. To quantify the health benefit is beyond our resources. • Stanley: How effective do you think spending this money on VMT reduction is? • Dietrich: The only way to clean the air is to reduce emissions. Is there a way to categorize programs? • Smith: My hope is the report we send to Council will quantify as many programs as we can. The most concrete ones are Car Care, lawnmower rebate, Climate Wise. Some of the monitoring and things we spend our budget on are not concrete. We can tie some numbers to them. What we need from you is a broad overview of what you think is important in the 2006/2007 budget. What things might be vulnerable, and what are top priorities? Air Quality Advisory Board 03/22/2005 Page 6 of 9 • York: Our recommendations don't have to be about just this department, expanding the transit program. • Smith: Do you generally feel that the City should be focusing on programs that bring about tangible reductions? • Levine: Some of the most worthwhile, like education, are not quantifiable. The biggest bang for the buck is the regulatory approach. That's the approach the City will be shyest to. • Stanley: I'm pessimistic on education. I say hit them in the pocket book. • York: The idling program is education that also cuts down emissions. We already are going to have an idling program. • Smith: That is primarily focusing on this year. Hopefully we've built a base and can continue on to a lesser extent next year. We can't say our outreach focus would be idling in 2006. • Smith: I've heard you say that it is the responsibility of the City to take steps to identify if the radon resistant ordinance is effective. It's a priority to look at the issues, there's some interest in the radon program. There's support and interest in continuing with the ozone reduction strategies, and interest in the Sustainability Action Plan. There's also interest in more financial support for the transit program because of the air quality benefit. I think I heard VMT reduction programs are important. Maybe it's most useful to say VMT reduction should be an important goal of the City. • York: It might be the number one goal. • Bowman: Would it be appropriate to talk about education, versus a direct measurable emissions reduction? • Stanley: An alternative to the I/M program is important. • Trine: Wood smoke is really important. • Levine: I don't see it as a high budget item. • Stanley: Could we put in Climate Wise? • Trine: Don't they have grant money? • Smith: We have in the past, but right at the moment we have continued support for the Climate Wise program. • Dietrich: I support programs to reduce emissions and reductions on air quality. don't have grant money. So, you monitor the effects of emission • Carrico: I keep looking at the air quality survey. The general public definitely leans toward outdoor air quality versus indoor air quality. Indoor air quality is not ranked as highly. You need to take into account what the public at large sees as priorities. • Levine: Survey after survey the public rates air quality as the first or second most important issue. • Smith: hi the last City survey it came out as one of the top programs to protect quality of life. Approval of Minutes With the following changes the minutes from the February 22, 2005 meeting were unanimously approved. • Correction: Dave Dietrich was left off the list of board members present • Levine: On page 8, I thought I used the past tense: Change to read "The timing of the lights was almost nil, it would...." Correction: Linda Stanley was shown as present, but was not in attendance Air Quality Advisory Board 03/22/2005 Page 7 of 9 Dietrich: Page 9, 2nd bullet: change to "The public should be kept informed about the City's use of bio-diesel, alternative fuels, etc. Dietrich: Page 10, 7`h bullet, midway through: change from "I would be interesting" to "It would be interesting..." Wood Smoke Lucinda Smith distributed hand outs and showed a PowerPoint presentation providing information and statistics regarding wood burning in Fort Collins. • York: I called in to the hot line. I couldn't identify where the smoke was coming from. The City sent a letter to the neighborhood. I would suggest the letter be rewritten. It could be a good point of education. It should be stronger. Also in the brochure, in the smoke puff thing, where it says the City of Fort Collins encourages citizens not to burn, that should come first. It gets lost in there. It should come first, or be a different color. • Smith: I'll email the letter to the board. I can't promise we'll change it. A lot of thought went into writing it. • York: It should have fewer words and the part about not burning trash should be bigger. • Trine: Some of the smoke comes right into their homes. Some people don't care about their neighbors and the general public. Make it personal to them, and point out the components could be coming right into their houses too. • Stanley: As we build new houses, the number of wood burning stoves goes down, also wood fire places. • Smith: Maybe we could find out how many gas stoves are sold in Fort Collins. • Levine: Friendly Fire started as natural gas retrofits, now they offer wood burning devices. • Levine: In 1995 from a memo of the AQAB it was recommended the City adopt a point of sale ordinance for both radon and wood burning. hi that time we've had about 25,000 more homes that don't have radon mitigation. • Smith: Council convened a committee, that committee recommended not having a mandatory point of sale ordinance. It was a split vote, 5/2. • Stanley: How would a point of sale ordinance be enforced? • Smith: There's no certificate of occupancy when a home is sold. • Levine: Home inspections would be the way to do it. • Stanley: They're not mandatory, just voluntary. • York: In homes being built today, I wonder how many are putting in wood burning fireplaces. • Smith: Only EPA -certified wood -burning devices are allowed to be installed. I don't know how many there are. • York: That's a number you should be able to acquire. • Smith: It could come from a retailer, or the home builders association. My sense from conversations with them is most people prefer a gas stove. • Trine: A lot of times it's renters who are burning wood. • Levine: Residential wood smoke ranks high as far as a mutagenic potential. Some of the science now indicates wood burning has morn health effects than we thought. • Smith: It's interesting to read "The Burning Issues" website. Wood smoke has twelve times the cancer -causing potential of cigarettes, for the same volume of smoke. Air Quality Advisory Board 03/22/2005 Page 8 of 9 • Stanley: Is there any data on the effects of a voluntary no burn. Is it a signal to folks it's ok to burn otherwise. • Smith: If we were to do that, it would probably be worthwhile to follow Denver's high pollution days. • Dietrich: I don't know if I would promote a voluntary no burn program. I would let it go, and let the assumption be there that it's prohibited. It would be interesting to track for a year the differences between Denver's high pollution and ours. How many days would it be worse or better? It wouldn't be hard to do. • Levine: Does promoting no -burn days imply its ok to burn on the good days. • Dietrich: I would focus on no burn, and not confuse the issue. • Stanley: I don't understand why we don't have a point of sale ordinance. There are lots of things we regulate. If we're requiring certified units in new houses, I don't understand why we don't require it at point of sale in older homes. • Dietrich: What if the person who buys the house says they're not going to burn anything. • Long: The recommendation was dismantling, not replacing. • Stanley: If we require one group to follow it, it should be across the board. • Levine: I can see grandfathering the person operating it. Some people depend on it. We allow people to operate old cars. • Bowman: Trying to enforce point of sale would be tied up in the courts. You only have to bring something up to code if you're doing a remodel. You don't have to bring it up to code if you sell something. These things have been litigated. The City would end up facing legal challenges. • Smith: Grand Junction required mandatory removal of non -certified units. They did almost 100% subsidizing at first. They were either close or in PM10 non -attainment so there was a different motivation. • Long: I go with the suggestion to work with realtors on the Zilch program, and raising the max loan amount. Get more people to do the program. It's a great loan program. • Stanley: I like Dave's idea of promoting no burn. • Bowman: Could you do a focus group to see what people's thoughts are? • Smith: We could, to test different messages and see how to get the messages out. • Stanley: The burning of wood is economically motivated. • Smith: About four or five years ago Bill Eckart did an estimate, it turned out it was more expensive to heat your house with wood than gas. • Smith: Another suggestion was to list the top ten reasons not to burn. • Levine: I'd like to continue this next month. I don't think we've the time to do this now. • Long: I like the suggestion to expand zilch participation. I'm shocked that only ten people applied, I'm one of them. • York: I like the recommendation of no burning, and additional education regarding not burning trash. • Carrico: Some people might respond better to a rebate rather than Zilch. • Long: Or a combination of both. • Bowman: I would ditto that, especially the no burn idea. • Levine: I like everything there. I'm not as optimistic as John as far as the efficacy of Zilch in and of itself. We need to take a strong look at what we're doing now, as far as giving the buyers of pre-existing homes the right to pollute forever. • Moore: I'm happy with what's up there, with an emphasis on no burning. Air Quality Advisory Board 03/22/2005 Page 9 of 9 • Dietrich: I have nothing to add. • Stanley: I agree with everyone. I would like to see a point of sale ordinance of some kind. • Stanley: We'll bring this back and talk about it more. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 8:20 p.m. Submitted by Terry Klahn Administrative Support Supervisor