Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAir Quality Advisory Board - Minutes - 12/18/2003MINUTES CITY OF FORT COLLINS AIR QUALITY ADVISORY BOARD REGULAR MEETING 281 N. COLLEGE AVE. December 18, 2003 For Reference: Linda Stanley, Chair 493-7225 Eric Hamrick, Council Liaison 226-4824 Sarah Fox, Staff Liaison 221-6312 Board Members Present Jim Dennison, Ken Moore, Linda Stanley, Cherie Trine, Katie Walters, Nancy York Board Members Absent Everett Bacon, John Long, Mandar Sunthankar (� Staff Present `�f 1 Natural Resources Department: Sarah Fox, Lucinda Smith, Liz Skelton T ' Streets: Rich Kopp (Code Enforcement) Guests Tom Moore (WRAP) \ / The meeting was called to order at 5:15 p.m. C �� Minutes With no changes, the minutes of the November 20, 2003 meeting were unanimously approved. Smoking Enforcement Rich Kopp presented updates on the progress of the smoking ordinance code enforcement. • Dennison: What department are you under? • Kopp: The office is Code compliance and we work out of the Streets Department. To date, we have not found a single violation of someone smoking in a public building. • Stanley: Even in the outspoken bars? • Kopp: In fact, we deliberately sought out the worst. It is amazing how well it has gone. We have had some violation of people smoking within the 20ft parameter. But even those folks have complied when approached. It is the smoothest transition of a code that I have ever seen before. I contribute it to upfront work, publicity and a health conscious community. Fort Collins is light years ahead of most communities of how citizens view law and most health issues. • Stanley: Have you had any owners give you a `piece of their mind'? • Kopp: We have had some say, "I don't like it", "it's not fair", "businesses shouldn't be forced," etc. That is about as rude as it gets. The majority of comments are from people who say how much they appreciate being able to go out with family and friends and enjoy themselves. • Dennison: These are people that you just run into while enforcing? Air Quality Advisory Board 06-19-2003 Page 2 of 12 • Kopp: The first few weeks we had a list of 20-some places we intended to visit. People recognize you as "the smoking cops" and come up to ask questions or give comments. For about every 10 positive comments that we get, there are two negative. • Dennison: Nobody curses, or is angry? • Kopp: There is only one situation that I can think of There was a group of young people smoking on the patio at Diamonds. At that time, we carried a piece of 20 ft rope around to show people where they needed to be. We asked the group to move up to the upper level, to be in compliance, and everybody moved except one guy that just sat there. I told him he would get a ticket if he didn't move. The rest of group said `get up here', and he was teetering between his ego and peer pressure. He eventually got up and moved with rest of group. That was the only confrontation that we have had of any significance. • Dennison: Do you ticket the patron or the owner of the establishment? • Kopp: Either or both. They way we have elected to deal with that, is if we find smoking, we go to owner or manager and tell them they need to ask them to put it out or leave. If they deal with the problem, I feel they have done their responsibility. If not, we go ask the patron, and they and the establishment will get ticket. Because, then the owner -has not met the reasonable expectation of the code. Most people have said "that's fair." • Dennison: That's like saying to an employee in a sexual harassment case that we're not responsible for preventing it in the first place. Maybe it is a phase -in thing; after a year, we can ticket both right away. You don't want the scenario where they only have to tell the patron to stop when you're there and it's OK to do it as long as you are not around. • Moore: I had a policy saying smoking permitted only in authorized areas. I wrote a new policy to the effect of the code. Any violation was subject to immediate dismissal. I told them I would not get any fines or spend anytime in jail. It's real black and white, and has worked well. People have even said that it cuts down on their smoking. • Stanley: I have heard a lot of that too. • York: One place I do know that somebody smokes is the civic center parking garage. They go in the walk-through and smoke because it is warm. • Kopp: We go through there pretty often, and haven't seen anything. No one has called to say it has happened on a regular basis. • York: I go in there, because of my work and I can smell it. I am grateful for the overall effect of the code. • Dennison: Would you write a ticket to the City of Fort Collins for that? • Kopp: In that case, we would probably write the individual a ticket. It would be difficult for anyone to monitor that. When we were in Boulder, they never even went to management or to the bartender first. I feel she should have gone to management, because the patrons were right on the barstool smoking; they weren't hiding it. • Moore: You would get more cooperation if you do it your way, rather than just writing tickets. • Kopp: That falls into a lot of what Sarah was doing: making businesses aware. Now we are doing the enforcement, but at least they are aware. • York: At City Council, private club people came in upset... Air Quality Advisory Board 06-19-2003 Page 3 of 12 • Fox: They were a legitimate private club under the smoking code. But the administrative rights were changed on December I1`h that added a piece to the requirements of a private club about being non-profit. So currently, they might not be. There is a City Manager administrative regulation change. • York: I wish that Larimer County could just do the part around Fort Collins and have it be non-smoking. • Stanley: Smoking bars are ones that have a high percentage of smokers. One of those that I live close to is Sliders. I can tell that their business has dropped. They say that their people went to JJs. It's the same thing with people going to the Sundance. • Dennison: Partly it is a question of time. Hopefully, at some point in future the whole country have this policy. People will eventually feel strong enough that everywhere will have it. • Kopp: The key to it being successful is if they follow the Fort Collins model. I think you guys set a standard that others ought to try to emulate. It is the ideal approach: educate, listen, get feedback and go back again and again. Over time, most rational people understand the implications and the importance of healthy lifestyle. That has made a huge difference. • York: Loveland is starting the process — they had a reception. • Smith: They have actually been working on it, and right now, they have a non-profit group called LASH behind the effort. They are starting with education of the public and not going to City Council yet. • Dennison: Do you have figures on how much is spent on public outreach? • Fox: We do have them, just not right here. • Dennison: If you saw the numbers, would you still say `that is what it takes', and if you short-change it, it won't pass? • Kopp: Absolutely. I think there is a direct proportion of compliance to the upfront education. • Dennison: I suspect that you might say send `one mailing and everybody will know'. We have to realize that people won't pay attention to one thing. You did redundant communication and outreach and that is what it takes. • Fox: We were lucky at the end when our dollars ran out, that the County and the Health District was willing to kick in from the County tobacco settlement dollars. • Dennison: Isn't there a statewide proposal to sell off the tobacco settlement money? • Fox: Yes. • Kopp: There is a program out there called Strategic Development through Informed Consent (SDIC). The whole premises behind SDIC is that it is the government's responsibility to inform the citizens of `what's cooking' and also that informed citizenry is much more likely to understand and get behind projects that the government has reached out to and has educated. And also, allowed them input into the process. There is a normal human reaction against people telling you how to live. I highly recommend the class from SDIC. City Council Meeting Linda Stanley presented to the board about her experience speaking at the Public Hearing last Tuesday in front of the City Council, on the subject of radon mitigation. Air Quality Advisory Board 06-19-2003 Page 4 of 12 • Stanley: There was this theme that there was no good scientific evidence that radon harms you, it's too expensive, let the consumer choose, etc. • Trine: Were there developers? • Stanley: Yes, builders, and real estate persons. City Council did not deliberate at all. It was a public hearing, to let Council hear from the public. There were some changes from the information that we received. The cost estimates doubled from what we saw for the radon system. I would like to find out why that was the case. They also included some more options. I think that would be good if we got some information on that. Maybe Brian could send something out? • York: I thought the option was to let the homeowner do the caulking? Am I correct? • Smith: The way it was presented was to just install the pipe and not do the scaling and caulking, so it was a scaled down fourth option. This was a surprise to us too, to see it up there. • Dennison: What is the next step? What role can we have to be involved from here out? • Smith: It goes to work -session on Feb 10`h. It would be good for us to lobby our Council members. We should have four votes for at least passive, I'm hoping. • Dennison: I'm interested in seeing the costs that they have to weigh into the decision are reasonable and accurate. • Stanley: Could we have an update in January from Brian on just the radon piece? • Dennison: Could we have a copy of the consultant report and a copy of what is being presented to City Council for comparison's sake? • Stanley: I have the packet from Tuesday. • Smith: That packet was on the whole IRC, so probably just the radon section is necessary. There might be more information, because the study session is where all the information and questions that have come up will try to be addressed. • York: The Homebuilders Association came up with some studies and some information that pooh-poohed the science. The Chamber of Commerce picked up and went along with that. Several realtors spoke and said they preferred the passive system. • Stanley: If it had to be anything, they preferred passive. The realtors are less against radon in general. They see in resale of homes, they get hit with having to do the mitigation. They are not quite as against it as the builders are. • York: Some testimony said that when the homebuyer was asked, they went with mitigation. • Smith: Somebody quoted Radon Review that was from `98 where there was sampling of 2000 homes; I think that was what Nancy was referring to. When people had high levels, the majority mitigated. • Trine: Is the Health District finished doing their thing? • Smith: That would be the cost -benefit analysis. I heard that it would be posted in the next day or too. • Walters: I think they estimated that it would be higher for active. • Smith: That was part of Dr. Bruce Cooper's comments. He said that the Health District Board voted after the new cost -benefit analysis to support passive. Although, I think he acknowledged that active would save more lives. • Trine: Could we get the background documents? Could you guys request that? Because whatever he comes out with, that would be a summary, but you don't get to see the actual background documents that he based it on. Air Quality Advisory Board 06-19-2003 Page 5 of 12 • Fox: I can't guarantee it, but I can ask. • Stanley: He did a good job in his comments. He was strong in his comments on health effects of radon. Air Quality Policies Lucinda Smith updated on the progress of several Air Quality policies, and introduced Tom Moore of WRAP (Western Regional Air Partnership) • Dennison: (Re: Non -road Pollution Sources) What are the principal contributors within that category? If they are 50% of the visibility reduction, it could be because lawn mowers do not have any emissions control at all. Are we talking about asking people to get rid of their lawn mowers? Or is it mostly construction? • Smith: I don't think I can answer that, in terms of what the contributors are, yet. We need to establish a policy that it is important to do what we can at the local level. We've actually been doing them already, with the Lawn Mower Rebate Program. More work would need to be done on figuring out the best approach to reduce those emissions. Some things are out of our control and some will be emission standards, phasing in over time at the federal level. There will be things that we can do at the local level. • Moore: I'd like to see a visual opacity level on diesel implementations. • Smith: The non -road kinds of things? • Moore: Right, like the graders out here. It's just billowing out blackness. They don't recognize that it would be more economical if it were running properly than to let it continue to burn at such high opacity. • Smith: The question is what we can do at local level. Potentially, we could establish some guidelines for procurement that would require certain kinds of technology or potentially limit opacity. I think there is a lot to be done that we haven't been looking at. • Stanley: The thing about having the policy is your not trying to figure out everything that you are going to do right now. Having a policy there gives you some way to guide what will happen in the future. • Trine: (re: Indoor Air Quality) How do you measure something like (an increase in the percentage of residents taking action)? • Smith: Citizen surveys is the primary means that we have to measure. • Stanley: (Re: Offset Emissions) I don't know how you could have a policy without overlapping with the other ones. It seems like this one is the over -arching? • Smith: I think it is. It is somewhat related to the issue of growth. If we stopped growing now, then we would meet our goal if we met all the other policies by continually reducing emissions. If we are going to grow, then we also have to do some offsetting of existing emissions by any new sources if we are going to meet our over -arching goal. • Stanley: Let's suppose that we kept it; what are some of the things that would go in there in terms of implementation? • Smith: It has not been implemented before. • York: It is like the energy policy: to increase reliance on renewable energy by 3% this year. • Stanley: But that is already a policy; it does not say what you are going to offset. You are going to offset some increased emissions by some new source by using wind energy. For this policy you would say, `For every 100 new cars that comes into Fort Collins we are going to..." Air Quality Advisory Board 06-19-2003 Page 6 of 12 • Smith: One thing that would come into play here over time is various Federal emissions control technology. Generally, when you look at emissions inventory over time they go down. The thing that might keep it level or bump it up is a growth of whatever the source is. In some ways, maybe some of that reduction in existing sources is happening through what is being mandated at the federal level. Tom also pointed out that to work with the policy we would have to know what our sources are. We would need a pre - comprehensive emissions inventory, which we do not have right now. We have bits and pieces, and there will be efforts at the state level to increase our emissions inventory. • Dennison: Would take a lot of work to generate one? • Smith: It could be more of a consultant thing. • Trine: It seems more like an industry thing, like what Holnam did. They offset a certain kind of big emissions particulates. And then that offset increased emissions of really fine particulates out at their kiln. • Stanley: When you hear 'offset emissions' you think about industrial sources and how they have to buy up sulfur dioxide credits. But that's not usually what it's all about. • Fox: You are usually losing, as far as the public goes. • Smith: Geographically, there are tradeoffs too. • Dennison: But large stationary sources are probably not in the picture at all. • Stanley: When we first looked at this on the subcommittee, we thought it didn't make a lot of sense. • Smith: On staff, we are still grappling with this question about: how much should we invest in doing some emissions inventories. It is a tradeoff, because when you spend resources on that, then you are not doing the programs. On the other hand, it helps define what programs you should be working on. We haven't resolved that yet. We will be trying to do more, and at least gathering what's out there. I wasn't aware that this report exists, and that it is on the web, right? • Moore: Yes, it is. • Smith: I could email you all the links so that you could look at it. In terms of this policy, I would favor not including it in the plan because I can't get my hand around what it means. Instead, maybe work on doing some emissions inventories and discussing this issue in the plan. • Walters: Would it make sense to put in the intro that this is something we need to look into? • Smith: Yes. • Walters: The first thing I came up with was if you get more cars coming in; get more people to ride the buses. I wonder if it wouldn't make sense to put it as `future plans', something that is not necessarily a policy, but something that we need to look into. If it happens to come up, we can use resources for it. • Stanley: Do you have a principal in here that does say something about how time and effort will be spent on Air Quality? • Smith: We had one, and the decision was not to include it. We have one saying something like, "Resources will be spent according to the priority of air pollution sources..." Something to get across that we would spend the majority of our time on mobile sources and so on down the line. I think we left it out because we thought that would be obvious. Is a policy like that helpful? Air Quality Advisory Board 06-19-2003 Page 7 of 12 • Stanley: I think it's good. It seems like a good principle or policy to say here is how we plan to allocate our time. That way a citizen could say, `you're not doing it this way!' Or is it set by City Council? • Smith: Every two years they develop their policy agenda, which somewhat relates to the policies. It picks out some that they want to work on, and we do try to develop work plans around that. In some ways, that's a policy -prioritizing thing. Although some of the policy agenda items are so general and they don't go into detail for air quality. For us, that may not be very helpful. Another factor that may weigh in here is what impact can we have? Suppose we could have a huge impact on the number two source, and we could not have much impact on the number one. Is it appropriate to spend 90% of our time on the number one source? • Stanley: To use a clich6, it seems like a `bang for your buck' kind of thing. That this should be prioritized in terms of... • Fox: I think it is kind of in the vision now; I saw that the discussion happened more in the vision. • Smith: The vision is expanded to include more of the LUTRAQ concept — to identify the link between land use, transportation and air quality. As staff, we can revisit the question of whether it would be useful to have a policy on how we expend resources. • York:(Re: Consistency with Air Quality Plans) Do you recall the idea that AQAB & NRAB would weigh in on planning and zoning issues? I could see this speaking to that. • Smith: I interpreted this more as one-step above the development review and actually being at the planning level. There is a relationship though. I haven't heard anything about that Council activity. • York: Like the Master Street Plan. As far as air quality concerns with the Master Street Plan. I was seriously concerned about it. • Smith: I think that would follow from the Transportation Master Plan. It would come out of that, and that would be the guiding document for all the various plan writings. I think you're right; they do have an impact on air quality. We will be trying to have this policy approved, and have support for it in the City and have Council adopt it. It sounds like a no-brainer, but I'm just letting you know that this one might be more difficult. • Stanley: You're thinking that just the way that you guys changed it, that that's going to be more likely to be approved? • Smith: Well, if we didn't tell anyone, then it would be more likely to be approved. But that's not the right approach. We should be responsible and proactive in telling people and trying to actually make it be meaningful. • Stanley: So do you think the way that it is written now, that it will actually be more meaningful than how it was written before? • Fox: Well, it will actually get accepted now. • Smith: Yes, I think that is the point. • Fox: We're thinking in baby steps. We are trying to get the relationship established. • York: One of the highest priorities for citizens is the health of the air and water. • Smith: We're still hopeful to have a policy that we could point to and that would be a stronger basis to interact with other departments to look at air quality issues. Even if it were all on us to do so, it would help us. • Walters: So this is more like, we have the right to do it? • Smith: I would say so, yes. Air Quality Advisory Board 06-19-2003 Page 8 of 12 • Trine: Would it go so far as, they have to run it by you? • Smith: It would be helpful. This could eventually lead to that, but it doesn't go that far. • Trine: It was ignored before; did anyone ever ask that the plans be run by them? Did you guys ask for that? Did you say, `we want to look at it before'? • Smith: I think the obvious ones, the ones that we clearly interact with, like transportation plans, that there was almost no question — we did. I'm not aware that we've made a formal request. I'm not even sure how we would do it. That's a good question. • Trine: I don't see why this would get more attention than the other one. • Smith: I see. That's really what I was trying to convey: by having the policy and talking to departments and trying to get support for it, work out a process for having this happen — that we might actually come up with something more meaningful even though the wording is a little bit softer. So that's what we are going to try to do. If we will be successful, I don't know. • Trine: (Re: Health Protection) I hate to see it limited to health agencies and local health professionals. I think the important thing for the City is to get both sides, which they don't do. So that could be in there specifically: that the City will seek out both sides. • Smith: Both sides of an issue? • Trine: Yes, because you will get one side from these guys, and that's it. I hate see it put in there that these are the guys that the City is going to go to, and that's it. I mean, it's Poudre Health Services District. The reality is, that's what it is. I hate to see the City limited. • Fox: We intended `health agencies' to be the County and the Health District, and `local health professionals' to be other people out there who are professional, who want to comment. We really saw it bigger than just the County and the Health Department. • Trine: OK. Because `local health professionals', I thought you meant the Health District. • Smith: We could look at the wording, because if it wasn't clear to you... it was meant to draw upon people with expertise in the health arena, regardless of where they come from. • Trine: My own personal recommendation would be that you specifically put in there that you are going to seek out both sides. Just to make sure that that is done: that both sides are sought out. Even with a scientific issue there is always two sides — like radon. • Smith: Can you think of some wording? i.e., "Look at the issue from all perspectives"? • Stanley: Considering various viewpoints, or something? • Trine: I think it should be specific: opposing viewpoints. There are always opposing viewpoints, always. • Dennison: Isn't that a duty that the City of Fort Collins has, regardless? • Trine: But they don't do it! • Dennison: But does it need to be said, because they have a duty... • Trine: Yes, because they don't do it. They have a duty, but they don't do it. You have to say it. • Dennison: I'm not saying I disagree or agree, but saying it isn't going to make somebody do it. It's implied and it is part of government. • Trine: Well not saying it is not going to make them do it either. By saying it, you can hold them to it. • Dennison: I think it gets down into the areas that people expect of local philosophies of government. It's kind of like saying, `the government should not persecute its citizens'. It's assumed that they shouldn't do that. Air Quality Advisory Board 06-19-2003 Page 9 of 12 • Trine: Well this is what I see happening: I see Poudre Health District coming in and they are going to be the arm of what's good for the environment, what's good for human health in this community. And they are not necessarily looking out for what is good for human health. But they are now the experts, and we are going to look to them and we are going to ignore the citizens. The citizens are going to be cut out of this process. Because these guys are the experts and this is what they say. That is why I feel so strongly about this, why I want to have that wording in there. • Smith: You're right in that this approach does look first to a helpful consensus from the health experts to help us establish priorities of health issues. Beyond that, citizens still would have an opportunity to raise issues. The process for raising issues could be through the board, going to City Council, getting members to support it who would then direct staff to look at it. That avenue is always there. We want to have some agreed upon approach for health related issues. We are not the health experts, and we would be seeking input from the health experts, initially. • Stanley: I think it might be limiting to say `health agencies and local health professional'. Because some of these cases have been people who have found research from non -local sources, that the local people were not aware of. • York: I was going to question the word `local'. • Smith: I think we can take that out. • Trine: Can I ask if people would support some sort of wording for both sides? Well I guess I just want to make sure that there is not the whole gamut up here. I'm being so specific because I know how it works: we'll hear this side and this is all we will hear. And this is the gamut up here, and I want the gamut down here as well. I don't know how to say that, if you could say `the whole picture' somehow that includes the opposing views. • Moore: `Pros and cons'? • York: Or `all viewpoints'? • Trine: The experts set the stage, and it is so important that you get both sides from those experts or else it is just not as meaningful, what they say. • Stanley: You could say, `We will solicit the active participation of health agencies and health professionals that represent all points of view'. I suppose `all points of view' is too broad. • Fox: Why this is confusing maybe, is that we want help prioritizing the health impacts. We would like health experts to come in and say `These are the top 5 things that we think are impacting this community that the City should be working on'. Then we as the City would say, `OK, we're going to work on some solutions to those' and seek public input and develop solutions and go from there. What's difficult is will we ever be able to get people to prioritize those issues if there is constant disagreement? • Trine: Well it's not the agreeing part, it's the information. It's that you get the whole picture. • Stanley: There is so much disagreement, because things evolve so much. • Trine: You are making the decision, right? This is just giving you information. • Fox: We are asking them to prioritize. • Dennison: Are you compelled to accept their recommendation? • Fox: It's advice. Air Quality Advisory Board 06-19-2003 Page 10 of 12 • Dennison: So they are like an advisory board? Understand that for anybody, they are going to have to give you their advice based on gut feel. If the health impacts were fully analyzed, there wouldn't be any work to do. They are using their best judgment, and that's another reason why you might not get a strong consensus. Usually people go to a ranking system and say it isn't perfect but it's the best that we can do. If you spend a few minutes organizing or prioritizing, you are better off than just wandering around aimlessly. I think it's a good idea because you have a significant amount of resources devoted towards protection of public health. It's a very good idea to invest a reasonable amount of effort to make sure that they are used in the best manner possible. I don't think there is any need for this language about the different viewpoints being represented because it is implied. You already do a good job of that. • Stanley: But it's who gets in on the original piece. • Trine: So it's even more important because they are making that decision for you. • Dennison: It is important. I think the policy should incorporate you want to draw from people with decent reputations and proper credentials and training. And drawing from the appropriate group of stakeholders that the government is intending to represent. • Dennison: When you start talking about diversity viewpoints is seems like we are almost trying to protect ourselves from democracy. • York: Federal energy policy was crafted by a very select few people and we don't even know who they are. • Dennison: And no federal policy says anything about different viewpoints. We trusted that the viewpoints the vice president was getting were appropriate. When things go awry, the public has to bear pressure on the process, like they are trying to bear pressure on that energy policy. I just think that's a strange comment to put into a policy. • Smith: `Knowledgeable members of environmental health community'. It's a different way of saying `health agencies and local health professionals'. • Walters: I'm afraid of `environmental' health'. That makes me think of Sierra Club instead of doctors. • Dennison: You could expand it by saying `health professionals and environmental health community'. Most doctors would say I'm not an environmental health professional. • Smith: Now we have `knowledgeable health professionals and members of the environmental health community'. • Trine: Nobody wants any kind of balance in there? Is that implied for everybody? • Stanley: Now that we have `knowledgeable' and `environmental health', I'm starting to feel a little more comfortable. I think we have reason to call the City on, if we feel like they're not getting a representative view. • Stanley: Any time you get involved in the health thing, if you don't have a disagreement that might be a problem because then you might not have representative group. • Smith: I think for this policy, there may be some consensus on what emerges. In terms of priorities, there are a few fundamental things. Different viewpoints on any one problem, that's where the viewpoints come in: the solution, the severity, the risk, etc. • Trine: I just don't like to get stacked. • Moore: Lucinda, how about `a diverse group of health professionals'? • Smith: I think that's good. `A diverse group of knowledgeable health professionals and members of the environmental health community'. Air Quality Advisory Board 06-19-2003 Page 11 of 12 • Dennison: (Re: Cost:Benef:t) Is there a way to phrase it so that the in-depth-ness of the analysis is appropriate for the severity of the situation. I think we would be more comfortable if the huge, life -threatening decisions got lots of consideration. • Smith: I don't know if there would be agreement on that, but generally, people could see if something was going to have a large impact or just a small impact. • Dennison: Maybe the proposers of the language were interested in avoidance of the situation where only direct, easily applied costs were included. When used, the cost - benefit analysis should include subjective and objective... • Smith: That's a thought... the cost -benefit analysis when used should consider external costs when available. Because sometimes quantifying those external costs is a huge thing. • Dennison: Don't they usually quantify everything they can, and then say that these are the unquantifiable items that you should consider a subjective part. • Stanley: Adding that subjective component where you can at least state that they are there. I think something that you don't have there is the purchasing decisions of the City. An air quality cost -benefit will be considered in purchasing decisions. • York: One of the things that I lobbied Council on was when they talked about the Master Street Plan was that they take into consideration climate change, the availability/cost of fossil fuel in the future. That's what I thought of when I read this. • Stanley: That's in planning process, right? • York: In the decision process. • Stanley: There is that other policy that says the City will consider air quality in these decisions... • Smith: To me, programs are different from City purchasing decisions. • York: Maybe you could say decisions and purchasing... • Smith: Broadly, this consideration of external cost might come up as the City develops the sustainability action plan. More broadly, it's going to be more meaningful. But it might be more useful to us to narrow down the scope, closer to where it was originally intended, which is having to do with fleets and fuels purchases. That is an immediate place where external costs and air quality benefits come into play and might not be as difficult to quantify. We do have an administrative policy that says to look at the air quality benefits, but not one that says to factor it in. If we could even go there, that would be a more concrete, tangible step that is more relevant to air quality. • Stanley: The way you have the wording there: external costs/life cycle costs and air quality benefits... you're talking about air quality external costs that impact air quality. It seems like life cycle costs are one thing and then there is external costs and benefits. • Smith: Thank You. The life cycle costs are a very different thing and should not have been in the middle. • Stanley: It would be nice if the City would consider external costs in everything. • Smith: Starting somewhere, and seeing it work, would make a big difference. I think that fleet purchases would be a good place where we might be able to do that. I get the sense that the board would rather have it be as broad as possible, but I personally think that something is better than nothing. Moving on to discuss the Vision/Implementation ideas stemming from the staff retreat: • York: (re: Community Readiness) Is that a survey? Air Quality Advisory Board 06-19-2003 Page 12 of 12 • Stanley: It is a model for how to get communities to be ready to take action. We survey key people in the community and find out where they are on a 10-point scale. Given where you are on that readiness level, there are steps to take to move your community up. It is a way to get your community ready to take the action. • York: I generally think that the people are ahead of the decision makers. • Fox: It would be good to know. I don't know if the whole community is aware. If they're not, a lot of the messages we are sending out could be missing them. • York: Is there going to be a new air quality survey this year? • Smith: Yes • York: Regarding the survey question `How did you learn your information?', you might differentiate between newspaper advertising and newspaper articles? • Smith: That's a great point. Several ideas for the survey have come up. We had another idea: Do people understand where road construction and maintenance funding comes from? • Stanley: (Re: Education/Annual Air Quality Report) I had meeting with managing editor of Coloradoan; he would be open to this regular column. He sees these regular columns, and he mentioned expanding that. • Smith: That's encouraging. I think Greg wants it to be CPES wide. He is very supportive of it. 2003 Annual Report for AQAB Linda Stanley will work on the Annual Report from previous minutes and memos, and will submit it to the board at a later date. Meeting adjourned 7.48 PM Submitted by Liz Skelton Administrative Secretary I