HomeMy WebLinkAboutAir Quality Advisory Board - Minutes - 03/16/2015MINUTES
CITY OF FORT COLLINS
AIR QUALITY ADVISORY BOARD
Date: Monday, March 16, 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
Jim Dennison Tom Moore, Chair
John Shenot Tom Griggs
Robert Kirkpatrick Gregory Miller
Mark Houdashelt
Rich Fisher
Vara Vissa
Staff Present Staff Absent
Mary Pat Aardrup, Volunteer Coordinator Melissa Hovey, Senior Environmental Planner
Dianne Tjalkens, Admin/Board Support
Councilmembers Present
Guests
Matt Tribby, Air Quality Engineer, Golder Associates/citizen
Call to order: John Shenot called to order at 5:34pm.
Public Comments:
None
Review and Approval of Minutes
Rich moved and Robert seconded a motion to approve the February 2015 AQAB minutes as amended.
Motion passed unanimously, 6-0-0.
Corrections: page 3, change “track” to “attract,”; top of page 4, “etter” change to “better”; page 6, add
comment after Rich’s agreement to draft memo that board decided to make necessary changes in meeting
instead.
AGENDA ITEM 1: AQAB Meeting Topics
The board discussed when/how to address topics from the work plan for the next several months as well as
how to better coordinate with Staff on City initiatives and plans.
John Shenot said that the board, by convention, decided a Work Plan before the three new members joined
the board. The Work Plan is in the packet provided to members. The board is reactive to requests from City
staff, resulting in a stream of presentations looking for endorsements before going before City Council.
1
These presentations take an inordinate amount of time and the board discussed how they can accommodate
these requests and also accomplish items in the Work Plan as well?
Comments/Q&A
• Items on the plan/agenda that are initiated by the board get bumped by staff presentations. Some
presentations have been repetitive with other open public meetings. Ex: Climate Action Plan (CAP).
o This is part of problem we are addressing. However, CAP is on Work Plan. Economic Health
presentation is less relevant. Staff has been directed to go to boards and has a timeline for
Council.
o Sometimes the presentations are too late to really have an impact. What is our role?
o The board is put in the role of being a box to check for staff needing to vet their programs.
Some have strong ties to air quality and some are tangential. How can the board be more
directed in what we want to focus on? The agenda we set for ourselves should aim to get the
board through its Work Plan.
o Does the board have valuable input when the presentations are late in the game?
• Perhaps the board needs to better prioritize. The board should plan ahead more for agenda items. One
role: City Council needs our opinion about whether programs are ?on right track, and takes our input
to make modifications. Other role: to offer unsolicited advice on subjects the board cares about. Our
Work Plan is submitted, but broad enough to add issues as they come up. Should John, Tom Moore
and Melissa make a list of “master issues” and determine timeline next month?
o Would like to see examples of the role (impact) the board has had in new developments.
o When people come to present, staff are asked to come to the board with information on air
quality consequences. The board needs to have the ability to say no to presenters if they are
not relevant to air quality issues.
• Developments go through the appropriate City processes and must go to Planning and Zoning if
outside normal process. Can we make suggestions to Council about new development guidelines?
o Yes.
• Would like to see the board be more proactive in setting the agenda. Many presentations have been
on ongoing projects that the board has weighed in on. Don’t want to be in conflict with staff or
Council, though. Would like to see board look more at transportation, but must find focus.
o A few things on Work Plan are specific and can be objectives to prioritize.
o Ex: Transportation impact manual could be prioritized to complete this year. It is air quality,
has an approved BFO, and can be done. Ex: Indoor air quality not getting enough attention,
so should the board take action there? What is most important to get done?
• Are there upcoming projects that we can look at through the lens of our Work Plan?
• The air quality manual was funded as a result of the work of this board. Previous development plans
had no tool by which to analyze air quality impacts.
o Dust manual is example of end product.
• Action Item: John will email Tom asking him to start a list of specific items that can be prioritized.
The board can add to the list and rank by priority at next meeting.
o At the next meeting Melissa can give input on where board can have most impact, with her
knowledge of upcoming projects.
o Board members can submit items to Tom and Melissa before the April meeting.
o When prioritizing, it will be helpful to know timelines.
o Urgency, ability to make a difference, and importance of issues will impact priority.
2
AGENDA ITEM 2: Transportation Air Quality Impacts Guidance Manual
The board discussed its involvement with this BFO offer and suggestions for project planning and
implementation.
John Shenot said before budgeting process last year, the board asked staff presenters for air quality impacts,
but staff has not had a tool to do the analysis. The goal of the BFO is to create a guidance manual for air
quality impacts of transportation related projects. (Mary Pat provided samples from other cities.) Board’s
role is to guide development and implementation of manual. The purpose of the manual is to give staff
guidance on how they assess air quality impacts of transportation related projects and would provide the City
more information to decide whether to approve/fund projects or select better alternatives. The manual can
also serve as a reference for triple bottom line assessment.
Comments/Q&A
• It was suggested the board cannot build its own tool (model) with dollar amount available in BFO.
Not being able to get data needed to run tools could be evaluation process roadblock. How do they
collect necessary data?
• Planning for corridors had no estimate of emissions or use of tools to determine “what ifs.” There are
readily available tools. It was suggested the board tie that into the decision process and make choices
based on projections. The AQAB can advise boards and public on how projects affect emissions.
How does Transportation department effectively communicate with contractor who might provide
that information? That is what the manual may do. Not developing a model.
o Manual provides information about where data can come from and what models/software can
be used to glean the information.
o Need more pointed guideline/program, not theoretical information. Ex: for any project over X
size, will run Y model.
o City needs to determine scope.
• Tool to assess impacts, will this tool serve as the decision maker for projects? What is the end result
of the tool?
o City will not make all transportation decisions based on emissions, but modeling will help
understand impacts and select better alternatives.
• Community needs a manual to understand impacts.
o That is a more general description of air quality impacts education for citizens, which is
different from the goal of this manual, which is to guide staff in analysis of transportation
projects.
o Such a public facing document would also be useful in the future.
• What departments would implement this manual?
o Other City staff can engage Environmental staff in planning and decisions.
o The City needs to decide who will be using the tools, so the board can address their needs.
• What types of projects and how big? Perhaps invite staff to come discuss the tools they are already
using.
o Like a library where staff can go to get the tools they need to do the analysis.
o Manual should also include assessment of transport issues.
o The impetus for the manual came from this board, because we were getting no answers about
air quality impacts. If in the future the AQAB can get even qualitative answers based on
some kind of process/assessment methodology, it would be more than have ever gotten
before. Happy to let City make most decisions about how detailed, which department will
implement, etc. Ideally quantitative answers are better. The tools are available, but the City is
not yet using them for assessment.
3
• Air quality has not been a criterion for Council on making decisions in the past. New climate goals
will require quantitative assessment of impacts for approval by Council.
• Does the board want to have a specific or deep role in guiding the City in what the manual looks like
or what the process is?
o Don’t have time to review and comment on huge documents about software packages. Must
rely on staff to tell board why selecting one tool over another. Comment on schematics of
program, not all the detail.
• If we assume City will hire someone to do the work, should the board review the request for bids?
o Should review scope of services. But feel comfortable not reviewing bids.
o Guide outcome and advocate for staff to Council to show how it is important and how it can
be implemented. Can provide technical analysis to Council on the manual. Stay high level.
• What was there before the manual existed? Ex: Kechter and Zeigler intersection has a lot of
development and traffic. This has not been addressed before? Are we trying to get ahead of the
problem?
o Yes.
o Involve stakeholders in the process.
• There are costs involved in evaluating air quality impacts. Have a flow chart to decide if must
evaluate air quality impacts, how much various tools cost, etc., so staff can include analysis in BFO
offers.
• Envision 2 step manual: 1) simple screening tool for Transportation to determine if air pollution of
particular project can be assessed with simple tool. 2) If can’t get emissions modelling, section on
how to find a contractor. Output is emissions factors for various options.
• This board has responsibility to shepherd this project. Can identify subcommittee members.
AGENDA ITEM 3: Fugitive Dust
The board discussed next steps on level of effort and interest in advancing the Fugitive Dust ordinance for
Council review and action.
John Shenot said this is an example of prioritizing issues. This board asked staff to make a priority of
addressing fugitive dust. Staff has put a lot of effort into this project. How much effort does this board want
to put into getting an ordinance in Fort Collins for fugitive dust? Without this board pushing, it may not
happen. How can the board best support Melissa?
Comments/Q&A
• This board’s role is not to lobby. However, with health issues, is okay to reemphasize need for the
manual in the future.
o AQAB should make opinions known in advice to Council.
o Not on Council’s agenda for 6 months (unscheduled item). Unless board continues to identify
as issue, it will probably go away. The AQAB can identify ways to work with Melissa on the
plan, manual adoption, and implementation.
• In principle, if this board started this and staff has put many hours into the project, suggested political
angle approach. What is the reason for the pushback? Why is it political? These issues will continue
to affect other projects.
o Would like to know what the problem is with the manual. Can we help address issues and
make revisions? Or is someone putting up roadblocks? Members present were all for pushing
ahead.
o Was it pushback or just timing?
4
o AQAB can write a letter to Council, but have had little response from Council in the past.
Can ask Council liaison to come to meeting. Or, can go to Council meeting and orally
present. Publicizing is an option. Can be done in consultation with Cunniff.
o We exist to advise Council. If they decide an issue is not a priority, that is how it goes. Is
there an information gap to fill, or other role to play?
• How are items removed from Council agenda?
o Executive session. Nothing wrong with asking Council for advice on how to proceed.
• Action Item: Board requests Tom Moore ask Ross Cunniff for direction on the Dust Manual.
• Should Cunniff be invited to meeting in which board prioritizes Work Plan items?
o Have invited him in the past. May have input on what Council would say.
AGENDA ITEM 4: Other Business
Board elections next month
• Will elect chair and vice chair next month. Tom Moore and John Shenot are both uncertain whether
they want to serve in either role. Members are encouraged to consider these positions.
Annual Report
• Report was circulated via email.
Review of City Council 6 Month Agenda Planning Calendar
• Is any of this subject to change with upcoming elections?
o Yes.
• Board and Commission periodic review on the calendar. How often does that happen?
o Council is reviewing whether they have right boards. There have been discussions about
consolidating Boards.
Agenda Items for April
• Conversation to prioritizing Work Plan items based on drafted list.
• Dust Manual update, based on Tom Moore’s conversation with Ross Cunniff.
• Air Quality Impacts Guidance Manual update.
• Members requested to send additional agenda items to Melissa and Tom Moore.
Meeting Adjourned: 7:40pm
Next Meeting: April 20
5