Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNatural Resources Advisory Board - Minutes - 01/15/1992MINUTES CITY OF FORT COLLINS NATURAL RESOURCES ADVISORY BOARD 300 WEST LAPORTEj, COUNCIL INFORMATION CENTER JANUARY 15, 1992 For Reference: Will Smith is the Chair of the NRAB - 223-0425 Cathy Fromme is the Council liaison - 223-9360 Tom Shoemaker is the Staff liaison - 221-6600 Board Members Present Hal Swope Chuck Davis Deni LaRue Will Smith Tim Johnson Bill Miller Steve Erthal Board Members Absent Christine Ferguson (excused) Phil Friedman (unexcused) Staff Present Tom Shoemaker Julie Bothwell Kevin McBride Guest Present Queda Nicodemus Introduction of Guest Kevin McBride, Water Quality Coordinator, City of Fort Collins, Stormwater Utility Queda Nicodemus, interested citizen New Business Stormwater Ordinance Change Kevin McBride said the Stormwater Utility is seeking a recommendation to Council regularly proposed changes in the City Code with respect to stormwater quality. He explained that the code changes are proposed in response to two concerns: to address requirements that will eventually be imposed on the City by federal legislation and to address discharges of treated ground water from leaking underground storage tank remediation sites. In the opinion of staff, treated ground waters would be better discharged to the storm sewer than the sanitary sewer. The memo which was included in the mailout, highlighted code changes needed to address items that will be required by the federal NPDES permit which will regulate stormwater discharges: prohibition of illicit connections to the stormwater system; control and cleanup of spills and dumping; inclusion of specific penalties for violations and the authority to inspect on private property. The City had most of these requirement covered in bits and pieces in various codes, but the proposed code changes put them all together. McBride said one significant thing in the most recent revision is the addition of some definitions. "Non-stormwater runoff" would be regulated because the EPA considers anything that is not actually stormwater runoff, t or permitted discharge tom an NPDES facility, as an illicit discharge. He commented that obviously not all those kinds of discharges are a problem, so they have chosen to call it then non-stormwater runoff. They have defined "contaminated water" loosely so that they can use a variety of standards to regulate discharges. Because so few data are available on the particular sources or problems, staff feels that a broad definition will work best. To keep it from being totally open-ended staff would use the EPA's "Quality Criteria for Water," to define particular contaminant limits. McBride said the City will work under other state permits rather than come up with an entirely new set of standards. The state already issues permits for leaking underground storage tanks or for the wastewater treatment plant to discharge. Stormwater will assume that appropriate standards are met if the discharger is able to get a permit from the state. McBride highlighted the section under "water quality control", section 26-498, item B which states, "the director shall have the right to impose more stringent effluent limitations..." This section allows the City to work under the state program, yet retain local control if the City should decide that some contaminant or source needs more stringent regulation than the state provides. McBride said the remainder of the code changes are self-explanatory. The item under "hazardous waste disposal" is really a clarification; the changes acknowledge that the Poudre Fire Authority may need to make an emergency discharge to the system during a fire or other emergency. McBride said the parts of the ordinance that are not highlighted are not changes in the code, but are included there to show what parts of the code address specific EPA requirements in the City's permit. Those are also self-explanatory. McBride said that the final page, "The General Leaking Underground Storage Tank Policy for The Cleanup of Groundwater Contaminated with Petroleum Hydrocarbons" addresses the second of the two items -- control of discharges from remediations facilities for cleanup of leaking underground storage tanks. The state has a general permit for remediation facilities that are routine, such as a gas station cleanup. There is also an individual permit requirement for circumstances in which TCE or some other more problematic substance needs treatment. For individual permits, public meetings are held and the City would get an opportunity to comment. In a general permit, the City does not get the opportunity to comment before the permit is given. The Stormwater Utility is proposing a policy so that the State and permitees will know what the Cit is going to require under the general permit. The difference in the City's policy and what the State would require is most significant in item two of the last page, "one sample per day shall be collected for the first five days of discharge. An initial sampling for all physical and chemical parameters included in the final permit, will be made immediately after discharge commences," McBride said the City proposes to accelerate permit requirements so the City will get test results much more quickly than they would normally under the State permit. That way if there is a problem with a clean-up facility, the City will know about it quickly, and will be able to remedy that situation. McBride added that there was a lot of discussion of "how quick is quick enough", but usually the gas cleanups are a simple process; the cleanup equipment takes the water and puts it through a system that volatilizes the gas. McBride said that item four is also significantly different from the E state permit and requ*es a chronic whole efflueptoxicity test. This test is a bioassay procedure in which either water fleas or flathead minnows are subjected to the discharge water. In the case of the water flea, this done for 96 hours and both reproductive rates and mortality are assessed. This test does cost the dischargers a significant additional amount of money, but the Stormwater Utility feels that getting this kind of information is necessary. Miller asked if the intent was to reduce the load on the Waste -water Treatment Plant. McBride said yes, that the treated water is so clean that it is similar to a foundation drain, and essentially diluting the discharge from the wastewater plant. There is a significant amount of discussion as to whether this dilution is good, but in general the Wastewater Plant is trying to take only wastewater. Johnson asked that if current practice was also reducing capacity. McBride replied that the person to answer that would be Dave Myer, of the Industrial Pretreatment Program. The EPA has always been after people to limit dilution of their wastewater streams, the City spends a large amount of money to keep groundwater from filtering into their pipes. The Stormwater Utility does not foresee any problems with the treated waters from remediation facilities and, in fact, the water may even be cleaner than most stormwater runoff. Smith asked what McBride was looking for from the NRAB. McBride said he attended the meeting to give the Board information and was not really expecting anything. He added that the NRAB could present Council with a memo with their views on the proposed changes. Johnson asked when the code changes were going to go before Council. McBride answered that they intend to present the changes to Council with the first reading on February 4. He said the Storm Drainage Board has written a memo recommending adoption of the ordinance changes by Council. The policy statement will be a Board policy that he may change over time. Davis asked how the enforcement process worked; will staff monitor what is going on and if they find something wrong, refer it to the City Attorney. McBride answered that penalties and enforcement fall under the general provisions of the City Code, which allows a $1,000 fine per violation. he said there is no specific enforcement plan yet, because they do not know the extent of the problems. Staff plans an education process because many people do not realize where to put certain things, or know what the problems are, etc. The first part of the NPDES permit is to asses the system and find out what kind of problems we do have. Certainly if there are repeated violations by the same person, they would seek a fine. It is really a citizen complaint process that they would use, and once the code is adopted, any citizen could make a complaint against a discharger. Smith if there is a public notice that someone has been cited or a complaint made such that people are aware. McBride replied that the only enforcement provision the Stormwater Utility has at present is the complaint process. LaRue stated that most media will not print private complaints unless there is a major controversy affecting many people. Johnson asked if this will change how things happen at City Park Lake in regard to the leaks there. McBride answered that the problem at City Park Lake is a legal battle at the present time to prove where the source 3 is coming from. A State -report identified the sourm, but the property owners contend they are not the source. He said that he did know the in's and out's of the case, but yes the code changes could be used in a situation like that for local enforcement. But, the source has to be very well defined. Davis said that a couple of years ago the Board discussed groundwater contamination and found that the County Health Department, Poudre Fire Authority, and Natural Resources Division all had roles to play. He asked if the "black holes" in enforcement are being filled in, or is the coordination yet to be achieved with some of the other entities. McBride replied that in the hydrological cycle, everything is eventually connected to everything else. The City Park Lake situation is a good example of groundwater contamination finally affecting surface water and an example of why Stormwater definitely needs to be involved. In situations where you had a groundwater problem that was migrating very slowly and not impacting any surface water, their involvement would be less. McBride stated that there is always an assessment of risk whenever a pollution problem is found. Shoemaker stated that there has been a void in groundwater cleanup concerns. Big spills are clearly the responsibility of PFA. Sometimes with reoccurring nuisances it was not clear who had responsibility, which meant the Natural Resources Division had them. The issue is almost resolved in that it is looking optimistic that County Health will be able to have full jurisdiction over spills and clean up after PFA has dealt with emergency situations. Once the PFA has the situation stabilized, the current direction is that the County Health will have the authority to take over. PFA and the County have been negotiating with the State and it looks like all the pieces are going to be pulled together. Davis asked if there was any precedents within the area of water quality for other local governments to be more strict than State standards. McBride replied that in certain instances there are. Boulder has tried to take over the federal 404 Wetlands Program in their jurisdiction. He also added that in the area of leaking underground storage tanks the proposed ordinance allows the Stormwater Utility to be more strict than the State. The ordinance allows the Stormwater director to impose more stringent effluent limitations than required by the CDS (Colorado Discharge System) and to add pollutant parameters to those required by the CDS. McBride said that they can make things more strict if they feel it necessary. Johnson moved and LaRue seconded that the NRAB endorse the proposed code changes. Smith asked if it was clear where the enforcement responsibility rested or this an issue that still needs to be better defined Shoemaker said there is a Code Enforcement Team which is working to clarify enforcement responsibilities. Johnson noted that the first page of the proposed code revisions, says, "In the opinion of staff, it is more appropriate that these effluents be discharged to the stormwater system," He said that it would be helpful to the reader if a few reasons were cited to justify the opinion. The motion was passed unanimously. Shoemaker stated that staff will draft the letter to Council for signature by the Chair. Cl • 0 Stormwater Oualitv Program Overview Shoemaker explained that at the January 2 meeting the Board made some comments about what is going on with respect to stormwater quality, surface water quality monitoring. Since McBride had the ordinance ready for review he thought this would also be a good opportunity for him to give the Board an overview of what his job is all about and where he pictures the City going with Stormwater quality programs in the next few years. McBride presented a chart that provides an overview of the stormwater quality program, where the Stormwater Utility sees the program going, and what they hope to achieve. He said the two main areas driving the stormwater quality program are the EMPDS program, the federal permit program under the Clean Water Act, and the local Environmental Management Plan. McBride stated that he is he stresses that goals of Clean Water Act are to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's waters. While the federal regulations require them to address the chemical quality of the water, McBride feels the program should look at the physical habitat, as part of the water body. They are by no means just concerned with chemical quality, but are trying to take an ecological perspective. At present there is not a clear understanding of what can be done in the highly modified urban environment. McBride said the Environmental Management Plan also plays a role because it calls for action to protect and enhance the quality of local water bodies by implementing policies and programs to prevent or limit non -point sources of water pollution. McBride said the NPDES permit under the Clean Water Act will require the Stormwater Utility to do the following: give general information about the City and the Storm Water Utility, give legal authority to control industrial discharges, prohibit illicit discharges, control spills and dumping, have teeth in the regulations, and carry out inspections on private property. The Stormwater Utility also does the monitoring program that is required. The first part of that is to identify which is really a land use study. It is a paper study of what is out there and where discharges might be coming from. They are required to look at all historic discharges that are not allowed at a publicly owned treatment plant. There is also a series of maps that need to be put together, such as land use, and places where people are storing hazardous materials. Data will come from Planning maps, PFA information, and wetlands information developed by Natural Resources. Stormwater will compile the information and look at it from a water quality perspective. McBride said that discharge characterization is also required. This includes a monitoring system where they look at two specific kinds of discharges; "dry weather" or continuous flows, and "wet weather" flows that occur during storms. So far, Staff has put together a little weather data and they are looking at what existing data are available for the streams. There is a significant database for the Poudre River for BOD and ammonia. Field screening is conducted during dry weather to identify continuous flows of contaminated water; for example, where someone is inadvertently connected to the storm sewer when they should be connected to the sanitary sewer. 5 During the characterization study they collect information on what is happening during a storm even; water quality can be very different from dry times. There is already a significant monitoring program and Stormwater will look at other monitoring needs in conjunction with a review of different kinds of environmental monitoring throughout the City. The next stage of the process will be to develop a management program to define what options are available to address identified concerns and what steps the City will take. The management program is going to be a policy document and the NRAB will probably be involved in its reviews. The management program will include controls of any significant chemical problems that are found, structural measures that they can design into the stormwater system, and different kinds of operation and maintenance procedures. McBride said one thing they are looking at is to try•and create more native vegetation throughout their system to reduce their maintenance costs. In the permit, the Stormwater Utility has to show that the City has the financial resources to do all the recommended programs. The different activities that will be undertaken related to the permit are education, coordination, planning, research, and permit preparation. Staff sees a need for education in the public sector, in the schools, with specific industries that may have a problem, and with different interest groups. They are working on both interdepartmental and intergovernmental coordination. They will be changing some design criteria to incorporate Best Management Practices into the design criteria for new developments. They are already working on channels stability criteria. Planning involves working with Natural Resources on the Natural Areas Policy Plan, completing the Poudre River masterplan incorporating water quality measures into individual basin plans. With research, they are trying to get involved with CSU, National Ecology Research Center, and the State Division of Wildlife. McBride said that they are trying to tap as many resources as they can to put things together to keep on the front edge of water quality. LaRue asked if a big snow melt was considered a storm situation. McBride answered that it was and that actually the wet weather monitoring is much more problematic because you have to get out there at the right time. They have stream samplers that will actually sense the level of the water in the stream and collect a sample after rain events. Snowmelt has been found to be more of a pollution problem because it stays around longer and has more chance to be contaminated. Swope said that he was pleased to hear so much about monitoring. He was concerned that there was not any discussion about parking lots and feels that those are terrible sources of pollutants in Fort Collins. McBride replied that they are planning to address the concern. He said that you can get into a philosophical discussion as to whether you go out and look at places where you think there are problems such as parking lots before you know there is a significant problem. Typically in water quality there has been some kind of chronic problem identified, and you look for the source. With Stormwater quality they have a lot of sources, but they are not really sure what specific problems they are causing. Erthal asked where runoff in parking lots went. McBride answered that this is one of the least well known areas of environmental science. Part of the problem that some things like salts are masked out, while things like oil go through transformations. He said "urban soup" is a problem because there may be many contaminants present at low levels, but the 2 effects of all the coNaminants combined is not town. The Stormwater Utility is experimenting with oil/water„separators at gas stations. There are a lot of ideas, but it is not really well worked out as to what is happening to any of those things. It is problematic to try and find out. Johnson asked what kind of things generally leak from asphalt to water sources. McBride replied that it is more of a problem when the asphalt is initially put down. More of the problems that he has heard discussed actually with asphalt are the air quality problems when it is layed. once it is cured it is more a concern about what is spilled on it rather than the asphalt itself. Erthal asked if monitoring is done every four hours, periodically, or continuously. McBride answered that there are two kinds of monitoring. In dry weather a grab sample is taken when there is enough flow. wet weather discharges vary greatly depending upon the time of the storm, how hard it rains, how long it rains, how long it has been since the last rain, and what is upstream. This makes it hard to monitor any one particular storm and judge overall quality. For wet weather monitoring, the disco sampler has a bubbler that tells what the elevation of the water in the stream is. When it senses a pre-set rise, it turns on and will take a "flow weighted sample". Sensors tell the machine how high the water is and how much is going by, and tell it to sample for example 10 millimeters every 500 gallons. Controls also tell the machine how long to operate to get a composite sample which is then analyzed. The dry weather sampling is done by hand. Smith asked if the changes in best management practices and designs for stormwater basins would result in them being considered wetlands, and if so would there restrictions as to what can be done in those areas. McBride answered that when there are natural restrictions they apply, but there is a lot of debate about what is a natural wetland. Wetlands are considered water purifiers and a lot of people would like to see them used as that. The catch is that you build a wetland somewhere and then discharge polluted water to it there is the possibility of someone saying "you are not meeting water quality criteria for discharges to a wetland." This will mean that they cannot use wetland for water quality purposes. McBride stated that, in general in the Western United States, most stormwater basins would not develop as wetlands unless specific plans were made to make one. McBride doubts that created wetlands would fall under federal jurisdiction. Smith stated that a new channel design or best management practice might form an open space. He asked how that interacts with some of the other plans that have been talked about. Shoemaker answered that there is close interaction and it could be either positive or negative depending on the design. He said that Staff thinks there is a lot of opportunity for the stormwater open space because the utility is actively buying areas. The Utility already has a policy of incorporating natural wetlands into the system, and leaving them. On the other hand you could come up with a design that is not adapted to habitat protection; you could find plenty of examples of that, but the trend is away from that rather than towards it. Smith stated that it is almost a backdoor way of forcing open space anytime there is a drainage located in any area that is considered for development. McBride said that there is a lot of -controversy about that. He said that they are trying to do what they can in areas that they already own. He was contacted by Bob Kulveny from Poudre R-1 and he is trying to 7 put together a group of people to adopt stormwater ponds and create habitat. McBride is working with Boltz Junior High to try and create an outdoor wetland classroom situation. N_RAB Annual Report Approval Smith said that Felchle prepared the memorandum on the 1991 annual report that was included in the mailout. He asked if any changes were needed. He is looking for Board approval to present the report to Council. Miller commented that Staff did a good job of keeping track of what was done and that it looked comprehensive. Swope asked if some of the work on the Harmony Corridor Plan was in 1991. Smith said that it was very close to ending in 1990. Miller moved and Erthal seconded that the 1991 Annual Report be approved and presented to Council. The motion was unanimously approved. Old Business Board Recommendation on Framework for Environmental Action Smith distributed a draft letter with the Board's comments on the Framework. He asked for any comments or changes. Shoemaker said that the comments from the January 2 meeting were summarized for Council and staff has worked them into the revision of the document. He said the Framework had been presented to the Planning and Zoning Board worksession and they were favorable. The Storm Drainage Board unanimously endorsed it, and said that it was very useful. They suggested that staff, along with "key" Boards and Commissions have frequent interaction in implementing it. The AQTF also thought the Framework looked good and endorsed it. Shoemaker will present the Framework to the Water Board January 17; staff response from the Water Utility was positive. Shoemaker clarified some of the key points from the January 2 discussion. The Board pointed out that the cost of development is a very important concern. He said there is one work item on page 4-19 which talks about environmental input into the cost of growth study. This is a separate area of the Council workplan which is beginning to be worked on, so they are trying to make sure that environmental considerations are included. The Board was concerned about surface water monitoring. Shoemaker noted that there is an ongoing program. Regarding transportation concerns, Shoemaker noted that there is a workplan item to incorporate environmental concerns about air quality into transportation planning. Staff had said this item was complete, but revised the item based on the Board comment that the hard work was just beginning. Shoemaker said that Council wants a recommendation from the Board. LaRue said that the idea of looking at the cost of development is starting to take hold. She noticed a position being advertised for a planner to study the cost of development. She said the language in the letter could be stated differently so it does not look like a weak link, but rather suggests an addition to the draft to progress and look at the costs of development and the costs of not taking action to protect the environment. Shoemaker clarified that the Council policy agenda includes a cost of 0 development study. *re is a new position bein9*dvertised under Greg Byrne to help with that. Swope stated that he thought the initial endeavor was outstanding and would support the letter. He said that the Board really wants to push the excellent job of identifying the areas where action is needed. Erthal asked if the Framework had been revised since comments were received from the January 2 meeting and when the report would be presented to Council. Shoemaker answered that it has been revised and Council will take action on it January 21. Erthal stated he would not support a letter going out since it seems redundant that some of the comments have been addressed as additions to the Framework. He would also like the last sentence of paragraph three to read: "We Hope the cost of development study will lead toward a better understanding of the relationship between environmental quality and economic and physical health." Shoemaker said that the way he has framed it to Council is that they have asked the Boards to review the draft and provide recommendations then he basically tried to respond to Boards by saying "yes, I can make that change". The changes are relatively minor in terms of substance. Erthal asked, if the changes have already been incorporated into the Framework, does the Board need a letter, or just Board approval. Smith said that there will be two things that they will do. He will go to the Council meeting and make a presentation, but he still believes that they should present the letter to convey the Board's understanding of how they read the draft. Shoemaker will make a presentation to Council saying that Council has received letters from Boards and this is how we have addressed them. Miller said that he would like Shoemaker and Staff to be complimented. Johnson suggested starting the letter by stating that the Board strongly encouraged adoption of the Framework, followed by complementing the staff. In regards to cost he said that he would like to reword the statement to read, "We recognize that a Council priority project is to study the costs and of benefits of growth." This would fit in and establish the kind of information to be provided and state that the Board looks forward to getting the information in the future. He said it was a much more positive way to state it and yet still state the Board's strong interest in the study. Smith said he was still unclear about the linkage to transportation policies. Until work is completed on the Action Plans, the Transportation Plan still concerns him. He said there is a tendency to view transportation as the line that connects points A and B, and not look at how the system affects A and B. He feels that transportation has a number of environmental effects when you look at land use and energy use. This is where he thought the link between transportation and environment is weak in the Framework because the issues are larger than transportation per se. Smith said that the Framework was a great catalogu problem is there is no clear statement about how it may said that Staff will push to make the actions happen. that the work program is always subject to change based priorities and budgets. Acceptance of the document by sets expectations of Staff. Then there is the question Shoemaker said that one of the changes made in response e right now, but the be used. Shoemaker The flip side is on Council's Council certainly of accountability. to the Board's comment is to identify ai.-environmental quality team —Within the City to look at opportunities for environmental improvement and to make this group the primary group accountable for implementing the Action Plan. LaRue moved and Erthal seconded that the amendments be made to the letter and presented to Council. The motion passed unanimously. Board Recommendations on Colorado Rockies Regional Cooperative Shoemaker reminded the Board that he had distributed a document at the January 2, meeting and asked members to review it. He is looking for a recommendation from the Board to Council as to whether the City should participate in this cooperative. Swope said that it is "mind boggling", it does everything for everybody. He would like to see the cooperative vision statement to better understand where they are going or what they are aiming for. Shoemaker replied that there are other questions on this and Staff could present the Board with more information. Smith asked what it is committing the City to do. He feels that it is a data exchange so that all the natural areas mapping and cataloguing that has been done within the City would contribute to a shared database. Shoemaker replied that it does not really commit the City to do anything except explore opportunities and attend meetings. He added that it is one of those things that is not fully defined in terms of where the benefits are. The overall objective is conservation of biological diversity on a regional scale. The City is interested in this at the local level so there is an opportunity to tie ends together. One of the first projects is to try and do a data exchange. Davis said that he saw some benefits as. far as the technical exchange, but he is not sure where the benefits are in terms of committing themselves to engage in a series of policy discussions. Erthal said he would concur with participating if the City can receive anything as far as ideas, knowledge, or information. Miller asked if this would include the whole irrigated basin of the Poudre River water shed which is being converted at a drastic rate from agriculture to other uses. He feels that should be brought into a better focus as a result of participation. Smith said that he was concerned that this might divert resources from some of the other programs, and that it might become another task to burden Staff with. LaRue said it was important to share data and this could definitely be a step in the right direction for regional cooperation. Johnson said that it seemed like things were missing. Johnson moved and Miller seconded that the discussion be tabled until there is more clarification of the goals of the program, the benefits to the City, and staffing requirements. Shoemaker asked if the Board would like the clarification be made in memo form or it would be best for Howard Alden to attend a meeting and answer questions. It was agreed that Alden would attend a meeting, with a 10 r document presented toe Board beforehand. The motion passed unanimously. New Business Brainstorm Session on Environmental Audit Project Shoemaker said that he was looking for is the Board's early ideas to help set the direction for a Council project that is not clearly defined at this stage. It has been termed "An Environmental Audit of City Operations", and includes looking at compliance issues. It goes to seeing "how we are doing" department by department with respect to environmental actions, and looking for opportunities for the City to demonstrate leadership in terms of its own operations. Shoemaker said that it could be a difficult project, both politically and in terms of logistics. He said that Staff's intent is to define how the project is going to work and bring it back to the board for formal comments. Smith recommended the Board address this item at a later date. He felt there are a lot of things involved and may be tough to give it fair discussion at the present time. LaRue asked if any portion of the audit was geared to determining what the citizens known about the city's environmental practices. In other words if the City is showing leadership, do people know that. She finds gaps between what people know and what is being done. Shoemaker replied that this concept was not anticipated at this stage except to report the results to the public. Johnson asked how one distinguishes this audit from the Environmental Framework. Shoemaker replied that the audit is one of the action items in the Framework. It is focused on how the employees and departments are acting within our own operations. Committee Reports Education Committe LaRue said that there will be an Education Committee meeting January 28. Announcements LaRue announced that she is not able to attend the retreat planned for February 22. Swope stated he also could not make it then. Bothwell will do a telephone poll and see what dates are possible. Smith announced that Councilmember Fromme brought forward during the January 14 Council worksession the letter that the Board wrote concerning the interaction of the Council and Poudre R-1 School District. The letter generated a fair amount of discussion. Some members said the entire process for handling this issue is in place and the City should let it work; plans will go through Planning and Zoning and people will have a chance for input. Other members said that citizens are calling Councilmembers because they would like to know what is happening and Councilmembers should be more informed and proactive in the process. There will be a discussion to clarify of the role of the City in the entire process and this will be given to Councilmembers. 11 R Smith announced that Cathy Fromme had suggestea`there be an opportunity at Council meetings there be an opportunity for Boards and Commissions to stand up and freely comment on concerns. One Councilmember commented that this should be the means of last resort if a Board and Commission is not being heard. The idea was tabled, but the question will be asked at a meeting of all Boards and Commission Chairs on January 28. Smith announced that there is going to be discussion at the February 5 meeting about some legislative issues such as conflict of interest, as well as some clarification of the purview of Boards for dispersing funds. Smith reminded members of the challenge between the Board and the Air Quality Task Force to leave their vehicles home an average of one day a week. Adiournment The meeting adjourned at 9:20 p.m. 12