HomeMy WebLinkAboutAir Quality Advisory Board - Minutes - 02/23/2015MINUTES
CITY OF FORT COLLINS
AIR QUALITY ADVISORY BOARD
Date: Monday, February 23, 2015
Location: Conference Room 1A, 215 N. Mason Street
Time: 5:30–8:00pm
For Reference
Tom Moore, Chair 970-988-4055
Ross Cunniff, Council Liaison 970-420-7398
Melissa Hovey, Staff Liaison 970-221-6813
Board Members Present Board Members Absent
Tom Moore, Chair
Tom Griggs
John Shenot
Robert Kirkpatrick
Mark Houdashelt
Jim Dennison
Rich Fisher
Gregory Miller
Vara Vissa
Staff Present
Melissa Hovey, Staff Liaison
Dianne Tjalkens, Admin/Board Support
Josh Birks, Economic Health Director
Lucinda Smith, Environmental Services Director
Councilmembers Present
Guests
Call to order: Tom Moore called to order at 5:36pm.
Public Comments:
None
Review and Approval of Minutes
John moved and Tom Griggs seconded a motion to approve the January 2015 AQAB minutes as amended.
Motion passed unanimously, 6-0-0. Jim, Greg, and Vara arrived after vote.
Corrections: Josh Birks not present.
Mark introduction: Give information (tape)
Pg. 4, above agenda item 2. “I…” can be attributed to John Shenot.
AGENDA ITEM 1: Economic
1
Josh Birks, Economic Health Director lead a discussion on the City’s update to the Economic Health
Strategic Plan and implications due to ozone non-attainment.
Economic Health Strategic Plan was adopted in 2012. Updating to stay true to community values. 2012 plan
was focused on the how, rather than the why. Also want strategic plan in alignment with City strategic plan
and Sustainability Service Area’s focus on integrating the triple bottom line. Also affecting changes: shift in
demographics of workforce, pace of innovation, climate change, and community build out. Have five themes
with vision statements and supporting goals for each. Broadening scope to embrace both primary employers
and support employers that provide essential services to primary or population. Community Prosperity theme
is to provide employment opportunities across the income and education/skills spectrum. Grow Our Own is
to support new and creative industry. Place Matters is about a balance between built and natural environment
and understanding what can be done with infill and redevelopment to sustain economy while preserving our
character and open spaces. The Climate Economy section is to help businesses respond to climate change in
place and leverage carbon reduction goals to develop new products and services. Think Regionally is about
strengthening outcomes by collaborating with regional partners.
Comments/Q&A
• What is a unified regional story?
o What are the resources we have regionally? Have top innovation communities, tourism, and
other commonalities, which lead to conversations about preserving what we have.
• Why is Josh presenting to AQAB?
o Economic Health Strategic Plan has high impact on everything City does, plus impending
lowering of ozone standard may have impact on the plan.
• How do you envision air quality being a part of the plan? We desire to improve air quality.
o Falling under Place Matters, air quality is an asset like water quality, proximity to
recreational facilities, etc. What drives economy now is talent. We are finding with
millennials entering work force is that they pick a place they want to live. Businesses are
moving to where talent is. How do we manage regulatory change with the business
community? Economic Health acts as conduit and translator to the business economy. How
do air quality and ozone impact businesses? They want better air quality but need assistance
getting through the regulation.
• Who are the regional partners and what has been done already?
o Primarily in realm of Josh meeting with other economic professionals. The aspirational goal
is to get deliverables out of conversations and collaboration around common goals. Have
been meeting with Wellington, Windsor, Longmont, etc.
o Boulder is known to have the image of caring about the environment. How do you define
collaboration versus competition?
Our role is to help business make good business decisions. There are other
communities that take a more competitive approach to economic health. We want to
work together rather than against each other. Ideally, Front Range or state would
work together.
Cameron Gloss did presentation to Council in which talked about lessons learned
from Boulder’s land use. 33% of people who live in Boulder work in Boulder. Fort
Collins is 55%. We want to maintain and improve this. Must address housing
affordability and employment.
2
• Pleased that draft recognizes air quality in economic health. Melissa or a board member can get him
info on how elevated ozone can lead to lost work and school days. Makes more tangible for business
people. Directly connected to economy. Having unhealthy air makes it harder to attract businesses
and harder for businesses to expand that emit ozone. It may also dissuade businesses from locating
here. Featuring these things may be a good emphasis.
o Council requires a sustainability assessment. Can get more specific with citations and support
in that type of document and general statements in the strategic plan.
• Regional transportation will be a big part of affordable housing. Boulder is 25 years ahead of us:
housing stock is over $300,000, can’t afford to live in anything other than condo, so choosing to
move outside. Need primary, support and service personnel all living here. How do we make sure
they can afford to live here?
o Josh was on Housing Affordability Policy Study (HAPS) technical team. Some think Boulder
situation is coming here quickly. “Trailing spouse” is an issue here. Partners and spouses
cannot find work here and look into employment shed. Commute patterns show Larimer
County is a net exporter of employees. The City is still a net importer, but Boulder is
significant net importer which causes traffic congestion, road wear and tear, air quality
issues, etc.
• What is the plan for employment?
o In the 2000s there was a lot of technology employment here. We were narrow and deep, but
now wide and shallow. Must get deeper to offer more employment. We can’t have every
industry, but diversifying is important. Also, supply chain for industries. Product coming in
from outside—bringing that here provides move up for lower wage earners.
• Health care and senior housing/care employs lots of young people to care for seniors.
o Health care is big here and we are a top place to retire.
o Carbon that can be saved through better practices in community housing—lots of excess right
now.
o As boomers are more active longer, changes needed for senior housing.
• The three rings of employment: primary, support, and services. What is correct percentage of each?
o We don’t have an ideal now. This issue is bigger than Fort Collins, but need to find solutions
for within our jurisdictional boundaries.
o Suggest adding elements about what want to achieve in the three rings/sectors. Set some
goals for relationship between primary and support.
• In favor of businesses getting help, but many can help themselves as well. What do citizens get out of
this economic health? For example, if our electric rates go up due to more renewables, what is the
economic benefit?
o Staff interacts with other policy issues that are being developed. Working with Climate
Action Plan to look at financial models to achieve goals. Economic Health Office consults to
other activities that are taking place.
• How do you find the kinds of businesses to employ the people who are here?
o Millennials: a more holistic and systems view of the world comes more naturally to them.
o Restaurants and other low margin businesses are the equivalent of low income households in
the business community. The way a low income household is impacted by climate, etc., can
have similar impact on small businesses.
o Need to attract leadership.
o Aspirational goals in CAP are good example of that.
3
• What is our objective? What is the metric? More people/more jobs, or fewer people/better paying
jobs?
• What does a two year strategic plan actually mean?
o It is not intended to be two years.
• How would air quality and economic health align with more jobs and more people? Best solution is
fewer people, lower density, and really clean jobs.
o That is good for here, but unless able to do that globally, you have externalized the problem
and will have spillover effect. Must meet needs of current residents and those who elect to
move here in the future, and allow having best standard of living possible: income and
wellbeing. Be smarter about how we use land and interface with environment. Resist putting
air quality and economic health against each other. We can get smarter and achieve
improvements as the community grows. The smarter we are, and the more people who are
doing this well, the better off the region will be.
• What is the City’s opinion about the environmental and economic indicators?
o We were doing really well economically and pretty well environmentally from GHG
emissions perspective. We are going to have to get smarter.
• Plan goes to Council next Tuesday for approval. Will be a living document, and must get more
concrete as we move forward.
• If the ozone standard changes, we will be in non-attainment for a long time to come. What does that
mean to economic development?
o Living within confines of reduced ozone concentrations is driven by EPA and the state.
Municipality must change economic development.
o How much can technology save us? It gets harder.
o Air quality rules will drive that development.
o State will draw up a plan for all areas in non-attainment to show progress. That will
constrain.
o Don’t want to put Economic Health in position to attract businesses with higher ozone
emissions.
o Heavy industrial generally is not allowed within the city. We lose control at our boundary.
That is where regional discussion is important.
o Transportation will be a limiting factor. Perhaps demonstrate to EPA encouraging economic
growth that encourages central living.
o As well as processes waste and gets energy locally.
o Market living without a car to millennials.
• This comes back to metrics. Need to specify how measuring economic improvement and the
constraints against economic improvement.
• There is evidence that regulations drive innovation.
o Oil and gas can grow but need to grow responsibly. The economic players we attract are
going to be pretty clean. It’s the old players that are not.
o If we are helping those folks get cleaner with innovation we can share with other
communities, which makes money. Trying to use the community as a laboratory to do things
better. Big enough to show scale. Own our utility.
• Josh will return to AQAB late-spring/early summer, with metrics.
4
AGENDA ITEM 2: Fugitive Dust
Melissa Hovey, Senior Environmental Planner, gave an update of progress on this issue, review of draft
manual and discussion on letter of support to Council.
Item has been placed on unscheduled work session item list. This item may go to Council for adoption in
May/June or later. As infill and redevelopment increase, the City has had more complaints about fugitive
dust. The City is proposing municipal code changes, a guidance manual, an internal administrative policy,
providing training and support, and public outreach. The dust sources covered in the manual are localized.
Particulate matter causes negative health impacts. There is no safe level of particulate matter. 10 microns and
less; most dust that is visible is in that range. PM10 penetrate upper respiratory; smaller particles penetrate
lungs, enter blood stream and have significant health impacts. The City currently has no code in place for
fugitive dust. City staff cannot enforce state or county codes, and there are gaps in the federal, state and
county rules. Addressing because citizens expect the City to do something about it. The City has a number of
inspectors that can be trained for dust control. How big of a problem is it? Have air emissions data that show
particulate matter reported from construction, paved and unpaved roads, and get considerable complaints.
Will not require/cause new permits, fees, additional inspections, etc. The manual goes over the 12 main dust
generating activities. Source must be emitting dust and crossing boundary. Tiered approach: prevent dust,
capture and control, or limit public access. Preliminary cost estimates are based on City contracts, CDOT
data, RS Means Guide, vendor estimates, etc. Thus far, relatively insignificant costs.
Comments/Q&A
• Phased development is not listed.
o That is a strategy in the manual, but could incur significant costs.
o Opportunity cost needs to be dealt with in the beginning. Ex: when clear 2 acres, as opposed
to 50, you have mobilization costs, but save costs of controlling dust.
• When contractors get upset about not having done this in the past and incurring costs either way, then
what?
o Must address why they haven’t been doing this already. Less than 25 acres, this will be new.
o Bigger companies will not be highly impacted if they’ve been doing dust control in other
states. Smaller/local companies could be highly impacted
• How much authority will you have with no permits or fees?
o It will be in municipal code and can issue citations and fines if not performing dust control
measures.
o Looking for it or waiting for complaints?
If guy is out in field and sees, does not need to wait for a complaint.
o If inspector goes to development and there is track-out, does someone intervene?
Will have training program to get all inspectors up on dust to be able to enforce.
• Cost estimate: It’s hard to put cost into context for the small business owner. Example: guys who do
leaf blowing in strip malls. Now they have to get a vacuum blower, plus emptying cost and disposal
cost. How much will have to raise price? Market sector effects?
o Don’t have to get vacuum leaf blower. Coming up with scenarios for each of 12 activities.
Have been requesting input from business owners.
• The workers are at risk from the health effects of dust. They should embrace these changes, but
developers had negative comments. Have you been able to address their concerns?
5
• An earlier version of the manual had examples of dust control in many locations. Great to show
Colorado examples, but hold onto fact that this is happening across the country. This is becoming
routine everywhere.
• Northern Colorado chapter of contractors. Do they have local representation?
o Haven’t heard from them.
o Get those industry groups to say this is industry best practice, not just Fort Collins idea. If
large and mid-level contractors are on board, the smaller guys will follow suit.
Extra credentials can help sell the business. Marketing benefit.
Ex: LEED has slightly greater upfront cost, but becomes a long term asset.
• In the context of sweeper, this is a transient issue. Likelihood of City inspector being there is low.
How does that compare to larger scale dust emitters? Is it really enforceable?
o Much more enforceable with a code on the books than without. Have not yet worked out
enforcement details with City attorneys.
o Have to train inspectors.
o Agencies use discretion to pick battles.
o One idea discussed is not having tickets or fines the first year and focusing on education.
• There is a cost of not mitigating. How many tons per year? What is cost of having dust in air to
human health?
o Staff will do TBL analysis and looking at emergency room costs, accidents, etc.
o PM2.5 will have data. AP42 may have data. Epidemiological information should be
available.
• Must determine why there is pushback, and come up with counter-arguments.
o This manual draws from industry best practices.
• Tom Moore drafted a resolution which was provided in the packet.
o The part about respecting neighbors is the strongest piece we have. We can show pictures and
ask if they think this is okay in neighborhoods or by schools. That can be emphasized more.
o Would add that there is benefit to the employees as well. If you are on a job site, you do not
want to be exposed either.
o Could be shorter, more simple and blunt.
o Rich agreed to make edits and circulate to board. Requested other members provide input as
well. (Note: board decided to make necessary changes during meeting instead)
• What has been the recent change to the code language?
o Putting in dust generating activity or source and defining it.
• Does concept of BMPs apply to the construction world and is it meaningful? Mention made of best
management practices—can simplify this message.
o Was encouraged by attorneys to change to “dust control measure.” They are holding out on
the manual being a prescriptive document so it is enforceable.
o How can this become standard operating procedure for companies to control for dust, like
they do for stormwater?
Stormwater: submitting erosion control plan and getting permit. We are trying to
eliminate the permit requirement.
• Are we thinking about rewriting the memo because it doesn’t express what we feel, or that it will
have more impact on Council decision if rewritten?
o Council would probably prefer 1 paragraph.
6
o Can all respond by email, then submit to Council packets. Already made a motion to draft
and submit recommendation to Council.
o Members made suggestions to edits.
Rich moved that memo as currently drafted be approved with changes offered during meeting. Jim seconded.
Motion passed unanimously, 9-0-0.
AGENDA ITEM 3: Other Business
MMM Asphalt plant air permit status
• CDPHE released final air permit. Inclusion of VOC control measures as RACT is direct impact of
comments from this board. Significant accomplishment.
• Spreadsheet of comments and how/if addressed in permit. How can City address unmet concerns?
• What were major items not accepted?
o No additional testing, controls, truck enclosures, counting truck emissions in modeling, etc.
• Deputy City Manager leading larger conversation.
• Future meeting: Discuss additional steps the City can consider.
Climate Action Plan status
• Council action delayed to March 3. Revisions and changes to model analysis and costs. Members
received latest version in packets. CAC is done.
• Other big change is 5% discount rate instead of 2.5%, so benefits estimated are much smaller than
previously.
o Direction to do that came from CFO. Economic team doing financial modeling. Lucinda sent
email last week.
o Should have been done months ago.
o Net costs to net savings year changed.
o Does current version have cost numbers in it? Board of Realtors is pushing delaying
consideration of CAP until cost numbers are firmed.
o What do other municipalities do for discount rate?
o One or two people decided to change the numbers after the CAC was over. Not good process.
• Do we need to make a motion requesting further action?
o Voted on old representation. Does CAC need to regroup before Council takes action?
o Many boards took action based on information presented to us. Differences are in hundreds
of millions of dollars.
o Can send separate letter of concern.
o Agree on what to say at Council meeting.
• Does the vision change, though? No. We approve because it’s a good thing to do and is progressive.
• Suggestion: If need to reconsider recommendation made, raise that in next meeting.
John moved that he will forward revised estimate from Lucinda Smith to all members of board. After
reviewing changed analysis, if board members want to reconsider recommendations made, they can
7
change votes on recommendations. Tom seconded. Motion passed, 9-0-0. (Copies of document provided
at meeting)
• Complaint is a process one.
o Because of process used, we are sending recommendations to Council based on different
numbers than what they will be looking at. Members should look at current numbers.
o Council members understand history of process.
• The discussion about costs has been significant for last few weeks and just today have reached a
decisions to send memo to Council with cost estimates with both 2.5% and 5% discount. Memo will
identify what cost combination the CAC recommended.
• CAC debated at length the % to use.
• City Council Finance Committee has been provided 2.5% and 5%. CFO’s opinion that 5% is more
appropriate for costing.
• Mark will read statements at next Council meeting.
Transportation Air Quality Impacts Guidance Manual
• Board has been concerned that many transportation projects are brought before board for approval
with little information on air quality impacts. BFO offer to create a manual. Will discuss how to
approach this at another meeting. Members requested to research best practices in other communities.
Election of representative to the Bicycle Advisory Committee
• Representatives do not attend all meetings, just ones related to air quality. Not in bylaws, but request
from City Manager’s Office. Subcommittee of Transportation Board.
• Mark agreed to be representative.
DDA renovation natural gas fire-pit feature
• Staff has been asked to address air quality impacts of fire pit.
• Fort Collins Access: Can send individual SARs.
• Does this feature align with climate goals, etc.?
Annual Report
• Tom Moore made edits to draft (board received in packet).
• Board discussed additional changes.
Rich moved to adopt the Annual Report as amended. Jim Seconded.
Motion passed unanimously, 9-0-0.
• Work Plan will be circulated to board.
Board and Commissions Training DVD
• Affordable Housing Strategic Plan Super Board meeting March 9.
• All new members must do video training. Information is in packet.
Meeting Adjourned: 8:21pm
Next Meeting: March 16
8