Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAir Quality Advisory Board - Minutes - 09/27/2005MINUTES CITY OF FORT COLLINS AIR QUALITY ADVISORY BOARD REGULAR MEETING 200 W. MOUNTAIN, SUITE A September 27, 2005 For Reference: Eric Levine, Chair 493-6341 David Roy, Council Liaison 407-7393 Lucinda Smith, Staff Liaison 224-6085 Board Members Present Kip Carrico, Dave Dietrich, Eric Levine, Bruce Macdonald, Gregory McMaster, Linda Stanley Board Members Absent Cherie Trine, Nancy York Staff Present Natural Resources Department: Lucinda Smith Terry Klahn, Melissa Moran Transfort: Marlyss Sitmer, Linda Dowlen Guests None The meeting was called to order at 5:36 pm Public Comment None "Clean Air — Track to Win" Campaign Overview, Melissa Moran Moran said she works part time in Community & Public Involvement and part time marketing clean air to the public. There were big plans for a great hybrid give-away, but it didn't work out. This program is a scaled down version of that idea. The program will begin on October 13, 2005, and end on November 13, 2005. It's intended to provide incentives to reduce idling and promote alternative transportation. We partnered with Smart Trips. The other piece of the program is a clean air quiz, its part of the educational component. The program is unique in that there is sponsorship with local and national companies. It will be distributed in 62,000 copies of the Fort Collins Forum It will also be aired on a couple Clear Channel stations and a couple of bill boards. There will be ads in the Weekly, Bullhorn, Forum, and potentially the Coloradoan. • Stanley: Are Council and City employees eligible? • Moran: We would like City employees to participate, that includes council. City employees are usually encouraged to attend and be a part of activities such as this. • Stanley: What about the Collegian? • Moran: They're on my list, I still need to investigate them. The entry forms will also be online to download. • Levine: How many and where were the entries distributed? • Moran: There will be 62,000 in the Forum. Smart Trips will work to distribute them at local businesses. • Macdonald: What measurement determines the success of the program? • Moran: A couple parts will determine success. I'd be happy with a 10% response, 6200 replies. We do have some abilities to do some measuring based on what people have tracked. • Stanley: What was the cost to the City? • Moran: Roughly, $15,000. It was split between Smart Trips and the Air Quality Program. • Moran: It would be great to do it again. Next year the cost would go down. We had to pay the Forum. Next year we could reserve City News well in advance. • Levine: From a personal perspective, I don't like quizzes that don't have the answers available. • Moran: I hear what you're saying but the idea is to get people to the site. • Levine: I understand, but it will be a small percentage that will go on. When there have been surveys asking where people get info, the intemet is at the bottom of the effectiveness level. Air Quality Advisory Board 08/23/2005 Page 2 of 9 • Stanley: When its over there should be a press release that plays upon who won, pictures. Build it around the answers. • Moran: I think the Forum will do that. The Forum has been pretty flexible, we're paying them. I think they'd be willing to put something in post -campaign. • Stanely: Have you seen this done in other communities? • Moran: I haven't. I have no idea what this will turn out like. • Dowlen: The closest thing I've seen is a Trip Saver Program. • Stanley: It certainly beats the ads in the newspapers. I'll be interested to see how it turns out. 2006/2007 City Budget — Air Quality Smith said that because transportation affects air quality we thought the board might be interested in the transportation aspect of the budget. I gathered from talking to Eric the board might have questions about Smart Trips and Transfort funding. • McMaster: Was the original Transfort budget done before CSU reduced their funding? • Sittner: We knew it was coming. Its included in the current offer. • Dowlen: Smart Trips is designed to change peoples travel behavior. Not to take their cars away, but to look at other forms of transportation. From the City's perspective we're trying to reduce traffic congestion. We focus on business. Of course, the fewer cars on the road benefits air quality and saves the City money. When you look at a mile of road versus our funding, it's a pretty good leverage. We have about $568,000 of CMAQ grant funds. We were asked, what is the least amount in the City's general fund you could have, and still get the grant money. Some of the programs the State will fund at a 100% level. Miscellaneous costs are not eligible. • McMaster: Is bicycling included? • Dowlen: The offer on the table does not provide any local match money. As far as the City is concerned they're not putting any money toward it. We have a two year contract in hand for a grant. There is a high potential that September 6, 2006 would be the end of any TDM program. • Stanley: Who would use the money for road projects? • Dowlen: Some road projects have some grant money, but not the total amount of the project. If there was more money available they could apply for and possibly receive it. The current thought is "why don't we use some of this money to add to if'? It's a drop in the bucket, it's not like they're doubling their money, or anything like that. Our costs are so small compared to road projects. There's an outside chance someone could say, lets use the entire two-year grant. We're still waiting to see how that piece will come out. On the question on the bike piece, there is a restore offer. Ron Phillips joined the meeting at 6:00 p.m. • Dowlen: The restore offer wouldn't completely bring the bike program to what we have. But, it would pay for some of the key components, the Bike/Ped Marketing Coordinator position, the business loaner program, bike maps. I haven't seen any indication it will be funded. • Stanley: So, the core offer is what you can do if you're only running the program on the grant money. • Phillips: There are three different offers. 1) The entire program is funded at the same level, 2) The restore offer, and at the request of the leadership team, 3) cutbacks that are now in the proposed budget. • Levine: What is the percentage difference? • Dowlen: The core offer is 49% of the existing budget. • Phillips: We were fortunate to get that. • Stanley: Why? • Phillips: It was not in the budget initially at all. • Stanley: The City Manager made the final cut. What's his reasoning behind that? • Phillips: He feels there are at least 4 council members who feel that the money should be used for other things. • Levine: We're sitting here calmly discussing this. But, in the more than a decade that I've been involved I haven't seen anything that affects air quality like this. First the emissions testing and now from the vent perspective and alternative mode. This budget speaks to the commitment of the leadership of the City of Fort Collins. Is the TDM program going to be cut.? • Dowlen: That's Smart Trips. We're known by two names. • McMaster: And, there are Transport changes I assume. Air Quality Advisory Board 08/23/2005 Page 3 of 9 • Sinner: Dial A Ride submitted four (4) offers. The offer included vehicle replacement, match money for a federal grant. There was an offer to expand service on Harmony and East Prospect. The newest offer includes the existing transit, but the Dial A Ride piece was scaled back to meet the federal requirements. There's reduced service hours, and it eliminated a reduced fare for low income. Then, as a result of scaling back to federal mandates a restoration offer was submitted. The restoration offer was partially funded, $173,000 was not funded. • Levine: So, the low income subsidy would continue, and the hours would be cut? • Sinner: The general management position was eliminated, and route 4 was reduced. • Levine: Two routes were canceled a couple years ago, this makes three (3) routes canceled. • Sittner: It was based on ridership, the number of riders on average per hour. And we looked at peak ridership. The ridership was extremely low. McMaster: It wouldn't be hard to argue that we've reached a non -viable and non-functional bus system. How do you meaningfully look at ridership numbers when so many other numbers come into it? • Levine: Does staff believe Transfort and other modes need minimum standards? • Phillips: We haven't reached that point yet. • Levine: Have any of those basic levels of service been identified? • Phillips: I think part of the reason that the route cuts were made on Route 4, and the elimination of night service for CSU specifically is that the Associated Students decided to cut the amount of money they did. That's part of the justification. • Levine: Does the City know why CSU decided to do that? • Phillips: It's the Associated Students. We have over twenty years of ASCSU fees going for transit. The change has not been explained. The leadership decided they needed some of that money for other things. • Levine: It's over 1 /3 of the budget. • Stanley: The Collegian talked about there not being enough people. • Levine: When we spoke with John Daggett he said they were concentrating on the core service routes. CSU was the core. They were increasing service to CSU. • Phillips: We don't have September numbers, but it's ironic that student ridership was up 30% over last year. • Stanley: Between gas prices and the parking trouble. • Levine: And the economy. • McMaster: Two of our major high schools don't have bus service. With school of choice and other factors, its incredible to me that we don't have service. It seems like a very shortsighted attempt to address a budget concern. They're not looking at long term effects. • Dowlen: We see the same things. Car pool requests are going up. It's a weird irony to struggle for funding when things are taking off. • Levine: Does this cut represent an average, or is it something unprecedented? • Phillips: It's unprecedented. ASCSU has harped on more service, but we cant do more service if there's not more money. The level of funding per student has remained the same for the past ten (10) years. • Macdonald: Is there an issue on the quality of service? A lot of my neighbors thought the service was poor. Is that a problem with CSU too? Are the students satisfied? • Phillips: The students seem to be satisfied. • Stanley: I think they are. I ride the bus with them. It works well, the service is great. • Dietrich: How many people use the bus? • Phillips: We gave out about 10,000 passes this year. • Sinner: I'd like to address the quality of service. A lot of it has to do with expectations. What we heard from the leadership is they want parking structures and park and rides. • Phillips: There has been speculation that there's some kind of agreement between the university admin and the ASCSU leadership to scratch each others backs to get a parking structure. It wasn't feasible. • Sittner: Each year we have a learning curve with the new student leadership to get them up to speed. • Stanley: Those buses are full. Sometimes I cant even get a seat. Its excellent service. What can you use as a bargaining chip? How can we have the students who need that service get to the ASCSU? • Sinner: The Associated Students set it up so that when students complained they would not be heard. The passes had a serial number that lets them know how many times a month a bus pass has been used. The leadership decided that any pass that was used fewer than 50, or more than 300 times would not be considered as being used. • Dietrich: Have you considered a nominal fee? Air Quality Advisory Board 08/23/2005 Page 4 of 9 • Sitmer: The students in 1998 actually voted to do $9.44 per semester. That's the fee. Then they voted to raise ii and add the night service. They are still collecting the $12.75, but its not coming through to transit as was originally intended. • McMaster: Can they do that? • Phillips: There was a court case that allowed them to do that. Students no longer vote on those fees. • Phillips: There are other fees collected for athletic events, rec center, and the medical center. Not all students use those. But those fees go to the university, not the Associated Students. • McMaster: Is that not the key then? Maybe that's the attack that needs to be taken. Transfort has to fit in the universities best interests in may respects. • Phillips: That seems to be logical. • Levine: CSU is a big piece. But if the City is serious about providing a viable alternative transportation system, that goes beyond CSU. I'm assuming that staff and the City agree with the goals of the Transportation Board. • Stanley: I want to go back to Dial -A -Ride real quick. I don't feel like its being gutted by not offering rides after 7:00. I think one of the things coming out of this BFO process is a way to meet needs of the public in other ways. I'm talking about picking up the slack. Private companies can provide some services at a cheaper cost. There are some things that will make people think more creatively. • Levine: Rick Price came and spoke about how disappointed he is with the bike system. We have big, key pieces missing that prevent it from being fully realized. Transfort is more of a challenge. • Levine: Ron, you said that Transfort and transportation is not below the line of being non -viable. I think I would agree, but it seems we're headed in the direction of it not being viable. • Phillips: This proposed budget leads us in that direction. We're certainly not increasing service. • Levine: The mobility report card predicted 2.5 growth, but the City was growing at 4.9% or 5%. Are we still at that percentage? • Phillips: We haven't had the funding to do the research. • Levine: That's indicative. The three (3) year survey told us something that was so different from what we were expecting. It seems the reaction was not to fund anything like that again. • Phillips: Transportation Planning made an offer to start doing mobility index research. It was not accepted. Transportation Funding is being cut as well. Out of the $5million being cut, transportation services is experiencing 2/3 of the general fund cuts. • Levine: Wow. • Phillips: There are cuts in engineering, they're not massive. We're losing a position in Transportation Planning. My policy and budget manager position is going away. I'm losing my three top administrators. I talked to 15 people to inform them they will not have jobs after 12/31/2005. We're losing another 13 vacant positions. • Levine: What percentage would that work out to be? • Phillips: It's around 26% or 27%. Utilities and Transportation are taking half the cuts. • Stanley: You and Utilities are the biggest? • Phillips: Our allocation out of the City budget is about 14%. Another big bit is $700,000 from pavement management. • Levine: What does something like that do long term? • Phillips: If it continues our pavement management will start going down and lowering the overall pavement condition. • Levine: You could argue that by cutting something like that, Council is being pretty irresponsible with resident's money. • Phillips. Council will look at a transportation maintenance fee so pavement management is fully funded. • McMaster: It's a clear example that if this budget goes through there will be significant long term effects. How do we recover once the pots of gold start to overflow again? How have they evaluated the long term impacts of these cuts? • Dowlen: From a TDM perspective a lot of what we do is behavioral change. Its not something you can stop and pick up at the same level. You would have to start over and try to build that base. We've had the City's division of TDM since 1998, and we've been progressively having more and more of an increase in alternative modes. You have to build that up, it becomes a pattern. • McMaster: We had a 3.5 million vmt reduction in 2004. That would equate to 500,000 trips not taken. You would see some of those trips coming back. • Phillips: I apologize for being late. Now I need to go to Council. I appreciate all that you folks are doing for air quality. Air Quality Advisory Board O8/23/2005 Page 5 of 9 • Stanley: We should hear about the air quality program too. They have a number of programs that were accepted or not accepted. • Smith: I'll briefly review the budget. The Natural Areas Program , funded through sales tax revenue, is not reflected. • Smith: There's a 24% decrease from 2005 to 2006 as the budget is proposed. The air quality program has an 11% decrease. In NRD we lose a total 2.65 FTE, however its important to point out some are not going away from the City. Sandy Hicks' position is going away, but will be covered by additional staff help from Utilities. Kathy Collier is working closely with them. Utilities has agreed to fund Climate Wise. It will stay in NRD. This shows a high degree of support, clearly we have common objectives and overlapping missions. In addition Climate Wise was given $25,000 additional than was requested. • McMaster: What if Utilities decides to drop that funding. • Smith: That would be an issue. But, once Council adopts the budget, they couldn't make that decision until the next budget cycle. • Stanley: They seem pretty committed. • Smith: Because of a lot of revenue funds, they're potentially less vulnerable than the general fund to reductions. • Smith: We lost one planner out of our department, but he'll be moving to Current Planning. The function is not going away. Utilities will fund a half time environmental compliance person. And, a small portion of John Stokes' time was shifted from general fund to natural areas. • Smith: The Action Plan for Sustainability was put in for funding but ranked really low, almost at the bottom We sort of regrouped and decided that the greatest chance of success was to take parts of it and put in the air quality offer. • Macdonald: Was any effort made to determine the air quality impact of cutting back on street sweeping? • Smith: I doubt it. • McMaster: It said that Old Town gets a sweeping two to three times a week. Why do they do it so often? • Smith: I was surprised by the frequency. • Smith: We had a couple offers that were not funded. Our main directive was to be bold and innovative. We took that to heart. One was bringing a model of the Mast Home Environmentalist here. It was designed with us kind of being the coordinator and then hand it off to another group. The other one was the Free Market Solution for Traffic Problems. I think it has potential, but in this tight budget time it also fell below the line. • McMaster: To me Number 4 is really essential, and is one of the most important things we could do. • Smith: It scored low in the transportation results group. I think they didn't have an appreciation of the potential for that. • Stanley: What that tells me is that before you start at community level we would have to educate City staff to see that there's some merit to it. Hopefully over the next year or two, maybe some of that can take place. If there's not a commitment, or if they don't see the need, even if there is money it wont do well. • Smith: In the core Air Quality offer, a lot is continuation of services and programs. It includes work on the pilot high emitter project. I really hoped to have more work on diesel emissions. There is still one sentence that talks about best practices, and I still think there could be a need for that. We still have radon, we wont do any new initiatives. We no longer handle the wood smoke response line. It's moving to Neighborhood Resources. There was a big cut in zilch that was suggested by the environmental results team. • Levine: The record for zilch is about $32,000. • Smith: We brought in elements of the of the Action Plan for Sustainability. There will be focus on certain goals. Our department will be working on green building. Utilities has offered some design assistance. It's an important issue. • Levine: Are the traffic lights in there? What about the amber? • Smith: The amber is not cost effective because its on such a short time. I think its possible that as they are changed they may include amber as a led. • Smith: There will be no air quality data reporting to the Coloradoan. The Health Department will be doing it. This way will be better, its really more efficient. • Levine: This whole BFO process, I have concerns. If I were going to approve something, say led lights for the walk/don't walk, I'd look at the payback. The payback on that is 3.5 years. That's pretty damn good. With BFO do you look at the horizon, or do you just focus on the next years budget? • Stanley: I think the old budget system did that. BFO makes you justify each one of your offers. Part of that justification should be the longterm. Before, you just get what you got last year, plus some more if there was a surplus. No one ever went back to see if these things were still needed or useful. Air Quality Advisory Board 08/23/2005 Page 6 of 9 • Levine: Transportation maintenance is relying on a separate fee. That's a very poor spending of public monies. • Stanley: Council is smart enough to figure that out, as they start looking at the budget. • Levine: Does the information to Council have that long term perspective? I haven't seen that. • Stanley: I believe they're asking about that. • Smith: I cant really answer that. I think Greg asked about analyzing the long term impacts of these decisions earlier. • Levine: In the educational piece you have to start from zero. We're missing opportunities. What does this board want to do as far as output to council on the budget? • Smith: There will be two actual council meetings to adopt the ordinance. • Stanley: We're a board, but we can also give our own personal input. • McMaster: The dilemma I face is I don't know enough details. I hesitate to speak up too much. • Stanley: It does make it difficult. How they've been trying to formulate the discussion is if you want to see this in, what do you want to take out? That's fair, but it makes it tough. • Levine: I believe you should never judge entities or organizations or people by what they claim to profess and what they believe. Judge them by results. If there is a difference between the two, you believe this by the basis of what you see. This budget challenge is one way I'm going view what the citizens real priorities are. • Smith: An incredible amount of work has gone into this, from staff and the lead team. • Stanley: I'd like to see a motion that picks up what we really liked and would like to keep. But we also need to talk about the long term impacts of cutting some of these programs and how it may not be cost effective over time. • Macdonald: Traffic congestion is something we can look at. Building up a bus service program that really works. With increasing gas costs people will be thinking about alternative transportation modes. College kids don't drive long distances. Lets look seriously at trying to enhance the bus service for CSU, and trying to reinstate some of the funding lost from the AS. • McMaster: The thing that bothers me is we're not dealing with single occupancy vehicles and vmt in a meaningful way. I'm not say lawnmowers and gas caps aren't important. But we're kind of seeing the trees and missing the forest. Radon seems to be a little under- funded, but at least its on there. But we're not addressing the vehicles. Even if 75% of the emissions are from 10% of the vehicles, that still leaves 25%, which is a lot. • Macdonald: Are we obligated to make a recommendation to Council? • Stanley: The budget drives everything, the budget is the action. I would like to make a motion that is more than open to all sorts of amendments. The pieces that we support and that we recommend be in or approved are Climate Wise, we support the shift in funding as a source for maintaining the program because we think the program is very worth while. We support the air quality improvement program. To some degree I'd like to see it expanded, but I don't think there's much hope. We support the items within that program, the radon education, the public education and the campaigns focusing on alternative fuels, the reduced idling. I would like to say we're excited about the program for green building, especially since it was recommended in the EVSAG report. Do we support the bio-diesel offer? • Macdonald: I have a little concern. Diesel fuel standards are being changed. Diesel fuel is going to change. • Smith: It could be broader. It is renewable, the production is more sustainable. You're correct though, the lower sulfur diesel and improved diesel technology will be coming on. I'm not sure there will be much cost difference. Bio-diesel with tax credits may be comparable. • McMaster: The price of soy beans is not going up. • Smith: So you support the 100% use of clean burning bio-diesel? • Levine: Don't cut zilch in half. • McMaster: If the money is not spent, if they don't use the money its not a cost. • Stanley: Somewhere in the motion we want to say that we don't want to see the zilch program cut by half because energy costs are raising dramatically. • Dietrich: How many years has it stayed at $30,000? How far back? Did it ever go higher? • Smith: It's never been different. • Stanley: Don't you think that might change, with the energy increases? • Dietrich: You have a point. I don't know the answer. There are a small amount of people who are interested in using it. A lot of people will make energy improvements regardless. • Levine: I'm worried about wood stove use going up. Air Quality Advisory Board 08/23/2005 Page 7 of 9 • Dietrich: Wood burning will go up. An interest free loan wont change that. People still have to put out the money. • Levine: It could be the tipping point. • Dietrich: All I'm saying is I wouldn't put my focus on doubling zilch. It's difficult argument. • Stanley: Are we opposed to the cuts in street sweeping? Macdonald: Before we agree we should understand the impacts of that. City council should study the air quality implications of that particular offer before accepting it. • Stanley: What about the light emitting diode program? • Smith: It might be possible it could be accomplished if it was folded into a larger purchase contract. It wouldn't require up front capital funding. A performance contract is revenue neutral. We pay them with the savings backa over the time. The City wouldn't get to realize the cost savings right away. I don't know the in's and out's. • Levine: What kind of budget are we talking about? • Smith: $80,000 • Macdonald: Anything with a payback like that makes sense. • Stanley: We support No. 6, Building Systems and Energy Management. • Smith: There are so many offers in the budget that relate to air quality. This offer is not related to NRD. • Stanley,: I think it's a good offer. • McMaster: Going back to No. 4. I was hoping to get a little more. I would like to sacrifice the street sweeping. That will become obvious. Macdonald: You're saying the public wrath will raise up. McMaster: Maybe, or we'll find its not that big a deal. • Levine: Remember the health impacts for people with respiratory ailments and asthma. • Macdonald: We just don't know. I don't think we should give it up without knowing. • Dietrich: Clean streets do encourage bike ridership. • Levine: We have traditionally supported it on environmental grounds. • Stanley: Maybe we could ask them to consider reinstating residential street sweeping based on an analysis of the impacts. McMaster: I would suggest we would like to see and support the Free Market Solution for Traffic Problems, and something with the Transfort and Smart Trips programs. • Carrico: No. 5 is one of the most important. No 4 ties into No. 5 • McMaster: I'm worried about the Free Market Solution. I was interpreting it as educating the public. A lot of people do not recognize we're already paying for the car. They're going to figure this out. • Stanley: You have way more hope than I do. They wont figure it out until they're hit in the pocket book. • Levine: Pepoel are not paying for externalities. The cost is so unbalanced. It's a heavily subsidized market. • Stanley: You're not going to convince anyone to change their behavior. The number one thing on the 2003 city survey was traffic congestion. How do we fix it? If you ride the bus that's great, but not me. Not unless there's a national policy that we are going to have a carbon tax. • Macdonald: I think I would de-emphasize it. What does it mean? Are we going to make people pay for their parking spots? • McMaster: That's the point. I do not think the case has been made effectively to the public. • Stanley: You have to make them pay it with respect to an individual action. • Macdonald: Tom the streets into toll roads, that would be insane. But that's the only way to make them understand. • Macdonald: Next year when we have "bike to work", we'll have "pay the toll" day. • Stanley: It should be called "the market solution" • Macdonald: we should focus on relieving congestion. We should be jumping on that as best we can. • Stanley: What do we want to say about No. 5? We support $21,000 to get $450,000. • Smith: The restoration offer would bring in the rest of Smart Trips, $125,000. • Dietrich: They're worried about putting in the $21,000 to grab the grant money, but they might shoot the grant money somewhere else. • Stanley: The grant money should remain with Smart Trips. • Levine: We're still recommending the $125,000. • Dietrich: Is the biking/walking program gone? Air Quality Advisory Board 08/23/2005 Page 8 of 9 • McMaster: People who are going to bike, are going to bike anyway. It's not much of an incentive. • Levine: I'm a big supporter of bikes. What's most important is a viable bike route that is relatively easy to navigate and provides connectivity. Once you have it you start marketing it, not before. You'll be at worse than ground level. You'll have to overcome negative perceptions. • Smith: I'm curious if you want to say anything about fate of 2007 CMAQ funding for Smart Trips. It may go totally away in 2007. • Stanley: What's the feeling of the board on Transfort? • Macdonald: I favor restoring some service for CSU students. It improves air quality, relieves congestion and enhances a feeling good will between the community and CSU that is hard to build. They bring a lot of value to this community. • Levine: I agree. It's standard planning for the future. • McMaster: Of the money that CSU cut, maybe we halve that, half goes back to expanding routes, and the other half goes to the rest of the community. We need to make up for that funding cut. We cant go backwards. • Stanley: At the risk of sounding anti-TransfoM it shows the Associated Students that City will make up what they're not paying. Then we're at a worse negotiating stance next time. I'm pro-Transfort, but I worry about giving CSU something. • McMaster: Maybe restore the cuts, but put the money into other routes in the community. I'd say we'd like to pursue with the Associated Students ways to restore that funding so we can improve part of the CSU routes. • Levine: If we lose student ridership how close to zero do we have to start to pick up the lost momentum? I'm worried we'll start five or ten years behind the times. • Levine: I'm not for any cuts in transportation. • Stanley: If we say that, that's not giving good direction. We can include in the memo that we realize these are tough budget times. We'd be showing that we recognize that. Yet we do see a long term cost to making some of these cuts, and hope the City will really consider what this is going to do in the long term. • Levine: I would be amenable to growing some of these at a slower pace, even though I feel it could have negative consequences. • Dietrich: What is the role the university plays with Transfort? The City should develop a new relationship with the university and the students. • Stanley: We recommend to restore the funding, and negotiate directly with CSU. Eric Levine will send a draft memo to the board for approval. Linda Stanley made the following motion: Move that we accept what has been discussed. The motion was seconded by Kip Carrico and was unanimously approved. Elect AQAB Vice -Chair Greg McMaster nominated Linda Stanley for vice -chair. The motion was seconded by Dave Dietrich. The motion carried unanimously. Minutes A motion was made by Linda Stanley to approve the minutes of the August, 2005 meeting. The motion was seconded by Dave Dietrich and unanimously approved. Eric Levine may email a few small typographical changes. Meeting adjourned 8:25 p.m. Submitted by Terry Klahn Administrative Support Supervisor Air Quality Advisory Board 08/23/2005 Page 9 of 9 Approved by the Board on October 25, 2005 Signed 6 , �j 10/27/05 Liz Skek n Date Administrative Secretary I Extension: 6600