Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNatural Resources Advisory Board - Minutes - 11/06/1991MINUTES CITY OF FORT COLLINS NATURAL RESOURCES ADVISORY BOARD 281 N. COLLEGE AVE. - CONFERENCE ROOM NnvF:NBER 6, 1991 Board Members Present Will Smith Bill Miller Tim Johnson Chuck Davis Hal Swope Phil Friedman Steve Erthal Deni LaRue Board Members Absent (excused) Christine Ferguson Staff Present Tom Shoemaker Julie Bothwell Edith Felchle Jan Meisel, Planning Jim Clark, Water and Wastewater Joe Frank, Planning Greg Byrne, Development Services Director Guests Present Cathy Fromme, Council Liaison Jim Miller Bob Blinderman, Stewart Environmental Consultants Introduction of Development services Director Smith introduced the new Director of Development Services, Greg Byrne. Byrne stated that he is happy to be on board and has had the opportunity to meet a lot of people and get acquainted with the community. Smith asked Byrne what his initial perceptions were of how the City does minimizing the environmental effects of growth. Byrne replied that he is not able to answer the question because he has not really gotten into the content of his duties. He has talked with Shoemaker and is beginning to realize how proactive the community is within natural resources areas; while other communities are talking about it, Fort Collins is acting. Byrne noted that staff has made a detailed inventory of natural resource areas which provides a good base line - now priorities need to be set. Smith stated that in the past there has been some animosity among Development Services and other departments and asked if Byrne sees any major hurdles to better integrating Development Services. Byrne replied that there are no major hurdles, but there are issues that are in tension with one another. Council will have to weigh policies that do not necessarily compete, but are in tension, and make findings and decisions. It is staffs' job to give Council the best possible information base from which to work so that they can make educated policy judgements. Discussion With Council Liaison Councilmember Fromme informed the Board that in her absence she kept up with their activities and was impressed with the Board's suggestions to the Transportation Plan. She offered to report anything to Council, if needed. Johnson told her that the Board is concerned about lack of funding for open space acquisitions. Minutes Johnson moved and Miller seconded the motion to approve the October 6, 1991 Minutes as presented. Erthal requested the addition on page seven, paragraph three after "i.e., construction products," the phrase "general public use, construction byproducts and byproducts from landscape services." Johnson and Miller accepted the amendment and the amended minutes were unanimously accepted. New Business Prospect Streetscape Design Program Jan Meisel and Joe Frank, Planning Department, gave a presentation on the Prospect Road Streetscape Design Program. Meisel requested any comments, concerns, or issues that the Board wishes to make about the project, which proposes visual improvements and beautification along the Prospect Road Corridor. Meisel displayed a map of the study area. She stated reasons for looking at the corridor are that Prospect is entryway to Fort Collins as well as a primary entryway to State University. The City's Goals and Objectives enhancing entryways to Fort Collins. The project is on the Council Work Program and was also identified as a high project in the 1991 LDGS audit. that two a major Colorado include 1990-91 priority Planning originally started in 1988, but was put on hold when the Harmony Corridor Plan gained momentum because of inadequate staff levels. They are now asking for input on the mission statement and work program so Planning staff can proceed, knowing they are going in the right direction. Meisel explained that there is wider interest in the study area than just streetscape design. CSU's Environmental Learning Center now extends to Prospect because of its recent acquisition of 35 acres of neighboring Flatiron property. CSU staff approached the Planning Department and Natural Resources Division and the City has taken a lead in exploring land use options. Gravel companies have begun to phase out their mining operations in the area and are a�l,so considering long-term opportunities. Some are interested in developing and others have contacted the City about acquiring the land as open space. 2 Meisel said that standards and guidelines will be created that will be similar to those established for the Harmony Corridor Plan for fencing, setbacks, lighting, landscaping, and grading. Planning will look at architectural characteristics such as bulk massing and heights of buildings in relation to open space. It is possible that two different design themes may be developed. About one-third of the corridor is in open space or will eventually be open space because of the Poudre River floodway. Development around the I-25 interchange will have a different theme because of commercial and retail highway businesses. Staff is in the first phase of citizen participation - review of the mission statement. The Parks and Recreation and Storm Drainage Boards have looked at the mission statement. Meisel has met with Citizen Planners and notified homeowners and property owners. An open house will be held the week of November 11 for property owners who have frontage on Prospect. Notices have also been sent to all affected property owners for input prior to the November 18 Planning and Zoning Board meeting, when the Board will review the mission statement and hopefully endorse the project. The second step is•a research and analysis phase, which has'just begun. Staff will gather information on existing and proposed conditions and analyze them for opportunities and constraints. This will be followed by design development and staff anticipates returning to the NRAB by January with design concepts. At this point, the citizen participation phase will start again to review design concepts. Then, a preferred alternative will be developed and standards and guidelines will be prepared. The final alternative and design standards will experience another round of citizen participation and review by Boards and Commissions before going to Council for adoption in May or June. Meisel asks the NRAB and other Boards to review the mission statement now, to look at the project again in January, and again in March or April. She welcomed the Board to attend any open houses and public hearings that will be held during the process. Johnson commended the remark on the first page of the mission statement, "Given the unique physical characteristics of the corridor, the program may make recommendations regarding open space linkages, potential recreation trail networks and transitions between open space and urban level development." Johnson emphasized that Planning should go beyond recreation bicycle trail networks and also consider provisions for commuter bicycling. Meisel responded that they are working with the Transportation Department to define the ultimate design width for the project. Prospect is designated on the Master Street plan as an arterial street, so it will meet the four lane criteria. Part of their design may recommend enlarging Prospect to accommodate a greater path width. Currently, arterials provide for "on street" bike 3 lanes and do not provide a wide sidewalk for recreation users. Friedman asked for clarification of the following sentence, "The Prospect Road Streetscape Design Program is not intended to address land use, comprehensive transportation analysis, or environmental issues." He asked how the plan will fit in with programs, policies, or other activities. Meisel replied that they will recognize existing plans and work within their standards and criteria. For example, they will study potential trail linkages identified in the Parks Master Plan, and try to recognize transportation issues, such as streets' narrowness and the need to accommodate bikes both on and off the street. In terms of land use, they will review existing and proposed usage. Currently, undeveloped parcels at the I-25 intersection are conditionally zoned togo through the PUD process prior to development. Although the streetscaping will consider land uses, detailed analysis is not planned because land use is addressed in existing policies, the LDGS, and the Comprehensive Plan. Friedman asked whether the streetscape plan will be subordinate or on an equal footing with existing plans. Meisel answered that it will be on equal footing, adopted and implemented along with the LDGS as part of the Comprehensive Plan. Developers will have to work with the LDGS and design guidelines and standards that have been adopted for the area. Friedman commented that something like streetscape designs could fall through the cracks when considered along with land use plans, comprehensive transportation analysis, and environmental issues. He stated that design issues should be given their due and should dovetail with existing policies. Meisel replied that the Prospect Streetscape Plan will be adopted in similar fashion to the Harmony Corridor Plan, to stand with other elements of the Comprehensive Plan. Erthal stated concern that Prospect should not be turned into some kind of grand "Welcome to Fort Collins" display. Smith noted that not only the CSU. learning center, but Boxelder Creek and other natural areas are also found within the study area. He noted that.much of the land around Boxelder Creek is currently farmed and asked how Natural Areas Plan considerations will be integrated into the Prospect Street Design. Shoemaker replied that Meisel's team intends to integrate natural areas into the design plan and are very well aware of the resources. The Division has provided inventory data and Meisel, Rob Wilkinson, and others are working together. The team has recently developed a conceptual "bubble diagram" design for part of the area, in fact. Johnson also commented on the sentence, "The Prospect Road Streetscape Design Program is not intended to address land use, comprehensive transportation analysis or environmental issues." He suggested changing the wording to describe how the plan compliments other City programs, which would help prevent the impression that it is an exclusive plan that ignores the existence of other programs. Fromme agreed with Johnson and wondered why there would be a plan that doesn't address these things, which should be basic fundamentals for any plan. Meisel agreed. Smith compared the project to Harmony Corridor and asked how planning will differ. Meisel replied that the scope is not as great as the Harmony Plan, which did deal with large scale land use and transportation issues. This design is strictly intended to meet the City's goals for entryway aesthetics. Although there are land use and transportation issues, they recognize that the existing system will deal with them in time as development occurs. Smith noted that although the focus is on design elements for beautification and visuals, multiple transportation mode concerns could stall the plan. He recommended examining these issues at the beginning rather than at the end of planning. Although Prospect is not used as heavily as Harmony, it does get a lot of use. Frank replied that transportation issues will not be ignored - they will be dealt with in the Transportation Plan. Smith expressed concern that transportation details may not be worked out if the Prospect Plan is expected to go to Council in March or April, given the status of the Transportation Plan. He asked whether the intent is to complete the plan on this schedule because of high development interest or proposals coming in to the Planning Department. Frank denied that any private plans have been submitted for review. Currently, CSU has expressed the greatest interest. Friedman inquired about the task, to "Develop Implementation Strategies." While others are directed at private development, this task seems to be directed at funding and maintenance responsibilities for public improvements. Meisel stated that there is a need for language revisions to be made for both public and private sectors, and to clarify responsibilities in the plan. Swope remarked on the wetlands that have been artificially created in this area by gravel mining. He asked whether federal law will protect them or can they be filled in for development? Shoemaker replied that they receive the same protection as other areas and repeated that some gravel companies have shown a lot of interest in working with the City to cooperatively reclaim the area and plan future open space. The relationship holds promise for doing some diverse projects, such as creating emergent wetlands instead of ponds, which will add greater habitat diversity. Erthal suggested that gravel companies should share reclamation costs, not just pass them on to the City. Meisel explained that companies are bound by state law to reclaim to some level, but that these levels may not be companionable with City goals. Meisel concluded by thanking the Board for their time and repeating her request for future comments, concerns, or questions. 5 Water Demand Manaaement Jim Clark, Water Conservation Specialist with the Water Department, discussed the Water Demand Management Program and specifically, the proposed Water Demand Management Resolution which was mailed to the Board. He also discussed other interests about his position and City water conservation activities in his presentation. Clark explained that the full-time, permanent position was created two years ago. Prior to this, water conservation officer Molly Nortier focused primarily on water waste complaints, with some public education activities. Nortier spent five to ten hours a week on public outreach, while Clark's position is committed full- time to public outreach on water conservation. Clark distributed a matrix summarizing his work for 1990 to illustrate his areas of emphasis and presented a summary of City water programs. Several city codes relate to water conservation. The one that is routinely enforced is a prohibition against wasting water, which is handled in response to complaints. Violators may be ticketed. Public education receives the greatest emphasis within the program. Clark makes numerous presentations on water conservation and water as a resource, and the Water and Wastewater Utility does mass media projects, such as distributing brochures and newspaper articles, and responding to inquiries. Clark commented on the xeriscape demonstration garden in front of City Hall. It is used for guided tours and is also a resource that people can visit on their own. Clark discussed the City's water reuse agreement with Platte River Power Authority and several ditch companies. In a complicated exchange of water rights and water, wastewater is piped to Rawhide plant for cooling purposes and then used for irrigation. He added that about seventy percent of City -owned land which is irrigated uses "raw," or untreated water, for more efficient use. Miller inquired whether there are two distribution systems in the City; one for raw and one for treated water. Clark confirmed that it is true, but that the raw water system basically consists of irrigation ditches throughout the city. Friedman asked why raw water is more efficient. Clark replied that use of untreated water is not more efficient in terms of the amount of water used. "Economical" is probably a better choice of words. When LaRue asked if the Zilch program is part of water conservation plans, Clark replied that it is an item in the proposed resolution. Until now, Zilch has been used for energy conservation, but the Utility has initiated a zero interest loan program for leaking service lines that need to be replaced. R n u 0 Friedman asked whether loans only apply if water meters are placed outside in a box or can water meters be placed inside buildings? Clark replied that City standards require installing meters inside, in a crawl space or basement if possible. The only time water meters are placed outside is when that is not possible. To qualify for the zero interest loan, applicants must have meters installed. Clark went on to summarize the process used to develop the Water Demand Management policy which is proposed as a Council resolution. In 1990, a committee was created by Council consisting of Councilmembers Winokur, Edwards, and Maxey, and Water Board members Mary Lou Smith, Kari Podmore, and Tom Brown. The first issue they addressed was metering. In 1990, a state bill was passed requiring water metering on new construction and meter installation for existing users by 2009. Businesses and multi -family units in Fort Collins have been metered for a long time, but most single family homes and duplexes are not metered, representing about 20,000 accounts and 40% of water use. Since 1977, the City has required meter yokes on new homes. The Committee decided that meters would be initially put in for volunteers at no charge using funds from new developments' plant investment fees. The intent is to upgrade the 20,000 unmetered units over the next 15 years. After volunteer metering is exhausted, homes may either be required to meter when there is a transfer'of ownership, or the retrofitting may be done geographically. Smith asked whether there is still an option to select a flat rate instead of paying for water used. Clark replied that, although an offer was made last summer to delay paying metered rates until September as an incentive, customers must now go on meter service within 90 days of installation, according to state law. Clark explained that after decisions were made on metering, the Committee considered other measures of demand management. Clark wrote a report to: 1) describe demand management and its potential benefits; 2) identify current water conservation programs; and 3) provide an list of potential demand management measures. A list of 24 measures were considered for their effectiveness, cost, and public acceptability. The Committee recommends implementing 12 demand management measures now in the draft resolution. The remaining measures will be considered annually for use in the future. Clark noted that the resolution includes quantifiable goals, so it will be possible to track progress and implement additional measures if needed. Smith noted that goals are expressed in gallons per capita and asked about the total water demand. Clark replied that peak water demand was 64 million gallons in 1989. He noted that weather is a consideration and that water use increases with population growth. 7 Johnson recommended that Clark look at novel ways to fund the conservation program. The Colorado Water Resources and Development Authority was given $30 million a few years ago to fund projects. Although in the past they only looked at water developments, when Johnson served on a committee for the Poudre Basin Study he asked if the Authority would fund water conservation and was told that they would consider it. Johnson asked what percentage of Poudre River Basin water is used by Fort Collins. Clark replied that in the Basin, about 5-10% of water is used for municipal purposes, and the rest is agriculture. Swope asked if the resolution addresses use of grass species that require less water than Kentucky bluegrass. Clark replied that the Committee considered several different possibilities, such as limiting permissible amounts of bluegrass in yards or commercial development. It was decided to emphasize, at least for now, public education on the alternatives to bluegrass lawns. Clark stated that the LDGS will be revised to give points for xeriscape designs and xeriscape measures will be encouraged on City -owned land. Erthal noted that the summary of current programs includes the statement, "Additionally, a xeriscape approach is a primary objective taken by the City for any new landscaping of public parks or street medians," and inquired where xeriscapinq is planted. Clark explained that his familiarity is with streets design and not with parks, but that tall fescue is often used except in certain areas where bluegrass is needed. Erthal suggested that "primary" may be too generous a term to use. Fromme commented on the lack of reference to topsoil requirements in the resolution. Clark replied that there are several ways to save water by improving topsoil that were discussed intensively, including requirements to: 1) stockpile and respread topsoil at construction sites, 2) add organic amendments to the,soil, or 3) import topsoil. He added that final decisions have not been made and that issues will be probably be considered by Council sessions when the resolution is reviewed. When Fromme asked Clark if he believes that topsoil conserves water, Clark replied affirmatively and that the ideal process is to scrape topsoil off before construction and put it aside. After construction, the soil should be tilled and the stockpiled topsoil replaced with composted manure supplements. Smith asked Clark to discuss rebates. Clark stated that the Committee did not recommend rebates because of costs and considers that low water fixtures can be addressed in public education, although a list of possible water conservation measures has been developed for future loans or rebates. Erthal asked if the Committee looked at future costs or savings of the program. Clark answered that some calculations have been made to estimate costs and benefits, but not in detail, and that the decision was a judgement call by the Committee. Clark told the Board that the resolution goes to Council on December 3. They can either attach meeting minutes with the agenda item summary or present a letter. Fromme said she would prefer a letter with the Board's recommendations. Johnson moved that a letter be written to Council with the Board's recommendations. LaRue seconded the motion. Friedman asked whether the intent was to present recommendations or comments on the draft resolution. Smith answered that if the Board feels strongly about other measures in addition to the 12 items proposed, they should be commented upon. Erthal asked if the Board was entertaining topics for the letter. Smith replied that the motion is to write a letter, and that the Board has not discussed the details of it yet. Felchle suggested that since it will not be presented to Council until December 3, the Water Committee could draft recommendations based on remarks from this meeting to be voted on at the next meeting. Erthal expressed his confusion about voting on the motion to send the letter to Council without determining first its content. Johnson replied that the intent is to accept the first 12 points and look at other points to add to the list. Smith added that discussion prior to the motion would form the content of the letter, such as concerns about alternative grasses, rebates, and economic incentives. Guidelines should be made now to avoid the need for lengthy discussion at the next meeting. Felchle explained that in the past, committees have been directed by motion to draft letters for later approval by the Board. Smith stated that the motion asks that a letter be written, which will probably be referred to committee for drafting, and that the discussion gives guidelines to the water committee (Swope, Friedman and Shoemaker). There will then be another discussion to approve the letter in a subsequent meeting. Shoemaker pointed out that the Board could defeat this motion and make a different motion to write a letter with specific recommendations. Friedman asked about the timing of the letter since the Board will not meet again until December 4. Smith replied that the Board may need to meet before the regular December 4 meeting, not just to determine the content of this letter, but because there are a number of other items that do not fit on the agenda. Smith stated that the Board should consider "What are the biggest issues that we want to make sure are incorporated in the letter?" Johnson restated the motion, recommending that the Water Committee 2 be asked to write a letter on the Water Conservation Program for the Board's approval to be sent to Council. Erthal moved to amend the motion by having the Board discuss the content of the letter and give guidance to the Water Committee before they meet. The amendment was accepted. The motion passed unanimously. Smith suggested that members give their comments and concerns about the proposal for use in drafting the letter. LaRue said she would like to see more emphasis placed on grass types and incentives for consumers to institute water conservation practices. Erthal agreed, stressing that new construction should be required to use grasses that need less water than Kentucky bluegrass. Incentives or rebates for water saving fixtures should be examined and the City should emphasize using xeriscape in parks. Davis concurred with the comment on incentives. Swope also concurred and suggested that more emphasis should be given to soil amendments and topsoil conservation, perhaps through an expanded education effort. Johnson suggested that the City should seek funding from the Colorado Water Resources and Power Development Authority. Miller said that Parks and Recreation should consider plantings other than bluegrass down to the edge of streams or ponds within the parks so that it does not have to be watered or mowed. Smith said the letter should recognize that a lot of effort was put into this program, noting that consideration of 24 items was a large task. He agreed with points that have been discussed and added that the final resolution should clarify which measures apply to commercial development, which apply to residential, and which - apply to City operations. A lot of recommendations are specific to City activities, but areas should be targeted where the biggest improvements can be made in water conservation. Friedman agreed that the letter should recognize the work that has been done. He would encourage more specific cost/benefit analysis from a long-term perspective, such as spending money to encourage low flush toilets purchases instead of spending money in the future to build another reservoir or acquire more water. Erthal said that although it was determined not to be cost effective, he would like to see a serious study of how rebates could offset future costs. Many cities have programs to pay for half the cost of toilets, and other economic measures should also be examined. Clark concluded by asking if the Board had received adequate information. Miller asked if Clark knew what changes occur to average utility bills with installation of water meters. Clark replied that, although costs have gone down, it can't be determined whether actual use is reduced because the homes were not metered before. They intend to do surveys in the future. 10 Environmental Management Plan Framework (EMP) Shoemaker stated that Natural Resources has a major work program related to the environmental management plan. In November, 1990, the Board reviewed a work program related to the completion of all elements of the EMP. Staff then took priorities from that work program to Council which were endorsed as priorities for the current work program of the EMP. One of the things that was included was to complete the report documenting development of the work program. The report, which has been on the back burner for the last 11 months, is now on the front burner and is nearly complete. It should be available for the special meeting later this month. Shoemaker stated that his need is for the Board and other boards to review the report and make recommendations on it to Council as a guide for ongoing EMP work. The content of the, plan has not changed, but more information is provided to show why improvements are needed, including the community's general concerns, important concerns that led to the work program, and material that summarizes the City's existing policies and programs. Reconsideration of NRAB Meeting Time Felchle said that heavy use of the 281 meeting room means that Boards and Commissions may only use it on Wednesday and Thursday nights and that there is other demand for the room at the Board's normal time. It was agreed that the first Wednesday of each month was still the preferred time for the Board to meet. Old Business Update on IPC Visits and County Recycling Survey Shoemaker reported that Shirley Bruns, Frank Lancaster, Rex Smith and Mick Mercer traveled to Illinois, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania to look at Crinc and Waste Management facilities. They were impressed with each site and decided that, although there are differences in approaches, they are all well constructed and operated facilities that could work in Fort Collins. The companies are fairly even, so the final decision will result from best final offers,, which Lancaster requested by November 12. Additional information was also requested on financing schemes and structures, market development, and assurances that Fort Collins will have the best markets available for recyclables. The telephone recycling survey is completed, but the report has not been written yet. Lancaster expects to receive it the third week of November. He won't release the results of the survey until he has communicated them in a report to the County Commissioners. 11 Shoemaker stated that a recommendation can be expected on the IPC the week of November 18. Smith asked whether contacts have been made with the communities in which these facilities are located to learn how well they have been served. Shoemaker replied that was part of the trip. Both are strong, reputable national firms. The decision will come through a series of considerations but the final criteria will be cost. Shoemaker said that, although Lancaster has not decided, a dual stream system may be chosen for collection because there are significant savings. It means that waste haulers collect newspapers separately from other materials, and the sorting is cleaner and easier. Friedman asked if the Commissioners are bound to act according to the outcome of the survey? If the survey reports 80% in favor, can the Commissioners still veto it? Shoemaker replied that the Commissioners are not bound by the survey. Cos ittes Reports (scheduled) Land Use Committee There was a request at the last meeting to draft a letter on the Environmental Learning Center and on Natural Areas, which Miller reported has not yet been done. He would like further guidance on what is needed. Smith stated that the Board wanted to send a message to Council on the importance of pressing the effort at the national level with Wayne Allard and Hank Brown to fund the National Heritage Area. Felchle will draft a letter for review by the Board. Committee Reports (Unscheduled) Transportation Committee Johnson reported on business from the meeting that was held. The committee discussed the new Fort Collins High School which is being developed as a "commuter school" with 10 acres of parking lot, which is the wrong message to send to the community and students. If there is a parking lot, it should have a $2.00 entry fee that goes down with additional riders, and is free for four people. Johnson said that subsidizing a huge parking lot for high school kids bothers a lot of people, including himself. LaRue agreed that it sends the wrong message, but commented that if the school is to be an athletic center, there will be a lot of people who drive there to watch games besides the kids. It is hot a good idea eliminate designated parking, nor is it safe, but an incentive for ride -sharing is a good idea. 12 Shoemaker asked for a point of clarification. As an advisory body to Council and not to the school board, how does the Board want to proceed with this? Smith replied that the Transportation Committee would like to recommend that Council take action with Poudre R-1 in terms of development of the school. He -sees a whole panoply of land use issues, not just transportation, which spring up immediately when a 10 acre parking lot is planned. The Board may want to express concern because this is a community project which seems to fly in the face of a number of community values. Shoemaker pointed out that the school system does not have to comply with City planning rules and regulations, but that the City and School Board have been working closely together to bring proposals through the system for City comment and review. Although the City has commented on alternative sites, it has not been presented with formal designs or layout. LaRue said that it is within the Board's charge to comment to Council on environmental concerns they may have with the school and to encourage them to work closely with the School Board. Johnson related conversations with two Councilmembers who indicated that they would appreciate a letter from the NRAR raising concerns and requesting Council and the School Board to work together on this. Smith stated that the Transportation Committee will draft a letter for the Board's consideration. LaRue suggested that paid parking be recommended during school hours to discourage daily use by students, but that the parking lot should be open to the public for athletic events at the school. Johnson stated that mass transit must be integrated into planning. Smith reported that' Council held a worksession on the Transportation Plan's mission statement, goals, and objectives. There was a fair amount of discussion, but. Council didn't have major problems with the document. The next step is to put together detailed action plans. He said that consideration is being.given for a Transportation Committee to advise City Council. Shoemaker said that the intent is to take the mission statement and goals to Council on December 3. Rick Ensdorff would like to meet with the joint chairs before then to discuss changes that have been made in response to Boards' and Council's comments. Transportation is developing a charter for a Transportation Board to provide policy recommendations and advice on transportation issues. A key issue for staff is that this Board will have a broad charge that crosses a lot of departmental lines, which needs to be recognized and addressed in the charter. Definition should also be given to expectations about interactions between boards. He estimated that the Board may be named by April. 13 A special meeting is needed in November to discuss the NRAB Workplan, update the Transportation Plan, review mitigation fund requests, plan the NRAB retreat, finalize a letter from the Water Committee, and discuss the EMP. The meeting was set for November 21 at 6:30 p.m. The meeting place will be announced. On behalf of the Transportation Committee, Smith challenged the Board and staff to outride them in 1992. He has also offered the challenge to the Air Quality Task Force. The AQTF asked if bicycling is the required mode, and intends to make a counter- proposal. The idea is to avoid driving, so carpooling, walking, and other transportation modes also qualify. Members are requested to inform Smith of the number of alternative miles they have logged and he will record them. The Board accepted the challenge. Smith reported that Eastman Kodak will sponsor the Northern Colorado Corporate Environmental Forum Conference on December 4 from 12:30-5:00 p.m.. There won't be vendors at the conference. It will mainly be academic and government institutions and private industries getting together to share experiences on their non - federally regulated programs and activities. Shoemaker announced that staff proposes changes to reporting high pollution days to provide a more consistent, year-round message that encourages people to act to avoid air pollution every day, year-round. Slogans and challenges are being created to get people out of their car once a week. At Natural Resources, the "boss buys lunch" for staff who meet the challenge between now and April. Challenges will also be made to E-Team and the rest of City staff. Smith reported that he is proposing a "screamer's challenge" to C4 involving the Transportation Department, public media, and local businesses or City enterprises. Instead of just emphasizing bicycling to work one day or week per year, there will be a year- round program for self -reporting avoided car trips. When people reach certain mileage, the media will report. that these people prevented so much pollution or energy use. Smith hopes to have other incentives or prizes to give to participants. The meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p.m. 14