Travis County Commssioners Court
January 20, 2004
The Closed Caption log for this Commissioners Court agenda item is provided by Travis County Internet Services. Since this file is derived from the Closed Captions created during live cablecasts, there are occasional spelling and grammatical errors. This Closed Caption log is not an official record the Commissioners Court Meeting and cannot be relied on for official purposes. For official records please contact the County Clerk at (512) 854-4722.
Item 21
Video: 10:30 to 11:00 am
Video: 11:00 to 12:00 pm (Jump to text discussion)
Video: Resolution wording (Jump to text discussion)
How citizens can provide input.
We had previously indicated our attention to call up 21 at 10:00. We have missed it by a few minutes. 21 a to 21. A. Consider early action compact's draft clean air action plan, and take appropriate action; and. B. Consider county's participation in the clean air partners program, and take appropriate action. We do have several -- several persons here on this item.
>> good morning.
>> good morning. I'm shalene walker with Travis County transportation and natural resources, with me to provide a briefing this morning is kathy stephens with campo, capital area metropolitan planning organization, also the chair of the early action compact task force. Bill gill with capco, capital area planning council, also a member of the early action compact task force. You have some briefing materials that I do apologize were -- were relatively last minute. That's the nature of this beast. Everything is being done on a very short time frame, under very strict deadlines, we are working as quickly as we can. I will go over just a little bit unless you don't want me to. What is in the backup memo in case you didn't get a chance to review it very well. Basically, on November 25th, the court did vote to approve the clean air coalition's adopted draft list of emission reduction measures that were recommended to be put into what is called the clean air action plan. You all were the first of 12 local jurisdictions who have been working on on this process to consider those emission reductions, however, those measures and rightly so you asked that we bring back the entire draft plan after the other 11 jurisdictions had an opportunity to look it over and provide comments and take action. To date, 10 of the other 12, nine of the other 12 besides you have done that. The two that have not taken official action yet are the city of san marcos and the city of luling. The city of san marcos did consider the measures on January 12th. At that time they decided to postpone action until their next meeting, januar 26th, because they had some questions arise, one of the measures, I will talk about that a little bit later, the inspection and maintenance program specifically as well as I believe the reduction measures. The city of luling simply has not been able to get it on their agenda and they will not get it -- be able to get it on their agenda until February 12th. That said the clean air coalition, which is comprised of one elected official from each of those 12 jurisdictions, including judge Biscoe who represents Travis County voted on Wednesday last Wednesday, January 14th, to go ahead and forward this draft plan to -- to the state, tceq and to the feds, usepa in order to make the January 31st deadline, which is a -- hard and fast deadline as part of the early action compact that you signed. If we do not make that deadline the whole compact is null and void basically. What is important to keep in mind that this is the draft plan. We are turning in a draft for them to make comments on. We also are holding the draft plan open for comments until February 18th, anybody can make comments on the draft plan. You as well as any citizen who wishes to do so. All of the information that been put on capco's
website and any time that we make a change we reload those documents. I understand that the modeling report is up there as well. I know that some people have been looking at that. So there's lots of information coming out daily and I would encourage anybody who is interested in getting the most up to date information to -- to look at that website and the website is -- is worldwide web capco dot state dot tx.us.
>> public comments are received when?
>> there's February 18th. They may be sent where?
>> they may be sent to the clean air force or to capco. You can call, fax, mail them, I have all of that information. You want me to list those phone numbers real quick. If you have them there.
>> you can send them in to www.cleanairforce.org through e-mail. Or fax 512-916-6038. Or by mail again to the clean air force 25 south interstate 35, suite 200, Austin, Texas, 78704. And anybody can call me and we will post this on our website as well at Travis County and have a link to them as well. I have in the backup memo, changes that the clean air coalition voted to make pursuant after you saw the last list of emission reductions. There -- they are fairly not insignificant, there were some major changes, but they don't necessarily change the mix of measures or -- or the broad specter of the measures. And I can go over those point by point if you would like really quickly.
>>
>> [one moment please for change in captioners]
>>
>> all of these folks talked about how yes, people have questions before you implement an I and m program. There is some -- some -- some reluctance to go ahead and do it. But all of them are consistently telling us that once implemented the programs work, there is very little discord among the people who actually have to do it, one of the easiest programs to implement despite what you might think about it. How effective is I and m. A may 2000 evaluation of the Texas motorist choice program in which the program was compared to an im 240 program, another type of program, concluded there was a 22% reduction in voc's and almost 31% reduction in carbon monoxide. Data collected since the implementation of the I and m programs in dfw in houston indicate these programs have seen a 70% reduction in knox, will 0% reduction in -- 80% reduction in voc's, 90 percent in ceo's for the vehicle that's actually failed the test, made repairs, come back and got the tests. That's actual data on car that's failed and got repaired and came back. After implementing I and m in counties ... Voluntarily, they didn't necessarily have to do it again. They were doing it because they wanted to stave off a non-attainment designation. A remote sensing study performed after one complete test cycle, ie 12 months had gone by, they supposedly tested all of the cars in those counties, indicate add 22% reduction in knox and a 9% reduction in voc's for the entire fleet. That the knot just the car that's failed the test, that's randomly testing the cars, showing reductions, so we are confident that I and m works. Our modeling indicates that it will get us one of the largest nox reductions and voc reductions in most any reduction strategy that's we are recommending. Definitely as effective as any of them on its own. And it's a program that is, it's a user fee based program. It hits the people that are causing a problem. It spreads those costs among a large group of people so that it's fair to everybody.
>> and the.
>> there is a program available, assuming that we do it.
>> there are first waivers. There are automatically some waivers for people if you hit certain income levels right after the bat you can get a year-long waiver, if you only drive a car 5,000 miles or less in any year, you don't have to get an inspection, an emissions inspection, but then there is the low income repair assistance program which is funded by the fee that is charged by everybody, if we choose to -- to draw those funds down from the state and administer that program, which we are definitely recommending as part of this I and m program, all three counties, implement low income repair assistance program along with it. Again because if you are not fixing the cars, that's the point of the program.
>> in addition to I and m we are doing several other things that hopefully will help.
>> yes, sir.
>>
>> [one moment please for change in captioners]
>>
>> ... And gets remission reductions from all four sectors.
>> any other questions from the court?
>> judge?
>> yes, sir.
>> obviously, I mean, the consistent argument that I have maintained throughout this is that I still think that most people are going to just know this whenever they pull in to get their cars inspected each year, because I don't think that we have a massive and we don't because we don't have a source -- we don't have the income or the revenue in order to really get that word out, so let's all agree that if we do this, what we are really telling people when you're going to find out this mostly. I mean even if we took out a full page ad in the newspaper for the next six months, probably on the front page you would still have people pull in and go "what got to do what?" I think we all need to agree with that, given that we're not going to do that kind of a measure, I do think that -- but I also think that a number of people think that we have an air quality problem. I have a little bit of an issue with that because I think that our air is getting better versus getting worse, and that is never something that is advertised. It's always the sky is falling, and given that we are getting -- I mean if you really believe that auto emissions is the culprit, we should let everybody know that the automobile industry has gotten message and they got the message a long time ago. Now, did they act as quickly as we we wanted them to? Probably no. But air -- or emission emissions with vehicles in the last ten years has become increasingly better than they ever were. In the last five years, even better than that. So we know that we're headed that direction. What I don't want to see, and you and I have talked about it a little bit in my office a little bit earlier. I don't want something to be put in place like I and m that just gets etched in stone. I mean I am philosophically vehimently opposed to setting some sort of a standard, passing something, putting something in law that you have it for perpituity, because if we get better, I want the ability to exit, I want the ability to get out of this, and I will tell you, I don't see many things that you get out of. You know, we create laws, we pass things that we think that we're doing the right reason, in this case, I mean maybe we are doing the right thing and the best thing we can do right now, because as you said, this is an immediate issue, and that has got my attention because I don't want our federal dollars messed with, and I'm still trying to build enough roads in this community for us to get up and down. I mean, as everybody in this community knows, that is what I feel the strongest about is the problem that we have with auto emissions is that we have too many idling automobiles, and we have idling automobiles because you can't get from point a to point b in this community. Period. I mean just try to go home from downtown at 5 or 6 -- wherever you live, unless you live two blocks from here and you walk, so I don't want to see us put something in even though you said that there is some intimation -- Gerald, you said I think we have gotten something that takes care of this in that document. Like you said I haven't read it since we just got it on Friday, but I want this to be something that is very specific. I don't want there to be any ambiguousty that if we get better, that we find a way to exit out of I and m, because I think we will eventually get to the point where we exit out of I and m, I'm not interested in perpetuating 30 people to sit in a room and say that's my job and that's what I want to do, and if those are the people that are always going to dictate, women, I mean, you know, we -- well, I mean, we will look at this, no one likes the word sunset, but I think that we need to be pretty bold in this and to say if we have the ability to show that our emissions, you know, are lessening, and I think it's probably going to be through industry or by the automobile industry, I think we still do have some point source problems, and we all know that there are some industries that don't really want to comply with this. I mean heavy equipment, off road, I understand the problem that they have, they've got a contract, they've got a contract to build a road or build whatever they're building within a certain time frame and the last thing they need is to have some crazy law that says, you know what, I mean you can't operate your vehicles on an ozone action day, or you can't -- you know, you can't leave your automobile or you condition leave that piece of equipment idling for x amount of time. I mean that is not a practical, as far as I'm concerned, not something practically feasible. So more than anything, cheline, I want to see us have the ability to exit out of an im program, because I probably will vote for an I and m program because I'm convinced that it's the one thing that we can do that perhaps can show and that we can keep this below this 85 point per billion number that we've got to do, but I'm really going to push hard for some sort of a mechanism that allows us to exit this thing if we start cleaning up our air.
>> and I think what we need to do is we can make that as a comment, either from you or from the court, to the tceq. What that is really going to be up to the tceq Commissioners. There's three of them, basically, who would be the ultimate arbitrator on that, and like anything, they're going to comment on all of these programs and tell us what they think, but I think that they also don't want to see a program, the Commissioners of tceq are not'llly prone to having programs just for the sake of having programs. Another thing is I and m is implemented by tceq and dps. There is no local body that would be coming, you know, I and m new head or anything like that, so that -- I don't know if that gives you any comfort, but anyway it's through existing organizations and I don't think there's a lot of total this is what we do for a living type of work going on. But the program would have to be plemed locally and we need to get that up and running, but again that is something that is not a money making program that is, if anything we will have to subsidize that a little bit just to administer it so...
>> yes, I'm through, thank you.
>> tom, do we know or have any idea of what it costs in dallas and also harris county to try to come into compliance after these particular counties... Attainment status and e.p.a. Come back under attainment such guidelines and program, has there been a cost assessment for these particular county.
>> yes. How much they have spent trying to get back into compliance?
>> yes.
>> I'm sure there are some numbers out there, I do not know them, actually.
>> that really, I think, would be good to know, I think it's a big deal and of course if you do not come into compliance, a penalty I guess assessed until you do come into compliance and I don't know what that cost us. Also, mentioned 85 parts per billion, that is a number that we live by, but also a number that we look at on a graduate scale, looking at the first three year, the second three %ears, whatever, and then one of them drop off, and we're right at the brink right now of being in timing, but I think it's pretty important that we strive toward that to ensure that we do not end up having to be mandated by the e.p.a. To come into compliance, which also jeopardize a lot of things such as the transportation dollars whether it be [inaudible] or other transportation mode here in traffic. My next question is is everyone basically on board to ensure that we, not only Travis County, but if we do go forward, in agreement going the same direction, is that pretty much in agreement can I point?
>> let's see, nine of the jurisdictions so far, and you would be the last one, have signed off on this basic draft plan, the basics of this draft plan. They didn't see all the wording, but the basic emission -- the emission reductions measures in this plan they have all signed off on. The exception is the court who is taking albert ortiz today, san marcos who postponed action today, and the city of luling which simply was not able to get it on their schedule, they meet very infrequently and they are not going to be able to each look at it until we've already turned in the draft plan and they understand that, and they have no problem with that, so, yes, the city of Round Rock, the city of elgin, lockhart, bastrop, the county of bastrop, hayes, Williamson county have all signed off on this and the city of Austin, obviously.
>> okay. Then lastly, if I may, can you possibly tell me maybe the breakdown, I mentioned I am an inspection maker's program, of course there's a overall amount of money that paid in the type of inspection, but there's a breakdown of the designated itemized cost that would go to a certain pot of that total amount.
>> we do not set the fee that people will be charged for an I and m program, again that is set by the tceq Commissioner, so we are going by estimates that staff has and tceq has provided us based on the program that we're recommending.
>> my question was that it does exist in other counties and I was basically trying to look at the model that other counties are using.
>> and that's what I have right here. Tceq indicates that at most our citizens would be charged $20 i
addition to the 12.50 safety inspection fee that they are currently charged. This that breaks down this way. $2 goes to dps in order to do all the work they do, they're ones that hand out the safety inspection sticker, they're the ones that work with all the station owners so they get $2. Tceq gets 50-cents. They do a very sophisticated public outreach with dps. Once you decide to do an I and m program, they help us, they set up build board, they have advertisement, that type of thing. 78-cents actually goes for communications between the station owners and the centralized computer system that is required so everybody is on record. Those are two calls, so that is accounted for in that fee, and then probably about $3 is what tceq is thinking each test would spit back $3 for the low income repair assistance program, if we decide to access those $3, we would get $3 from each test to help repair qualifying folks' cars. If we decide not to implement a lot of that program, that $3 goes to the general fund of the state. So that basically leaves 13.70 to the station owners to cover their costs for purchasing the equipment, operating the program on a daily basis, I mean that covers everything from phone calls to paper, to. [papers shuffling - audio interference] , all of this stuff is taken into consideration, and that is assuming they do anywhere between 100 and 150 tests per month, and they try to ensure that the station owners are able to recoup all of their costs and make a profit within 3 to five years.
>> thank you. Final question, if citizens within Travis County listen to this and have a curious notion to dig around a little bit, how could they do that as far as getting information about this particular program that we are looking at and have been looking at here for awhile? And also the partners of the persons that support this particular program, I think an example I think the chamber may be one of them. Several partners, the organization that do support this program as far as what we're trying to do, how would they get this information?
>> all of the information is being kept on the capital area planning council's website because they've got a fairly sophisticated website and there's a lot of docks so you can go to www.capco.st.tx. We'll put a link on our website following action today. They're welcome to call myself with Travis County natural resources department at 854-9383,if they're having trouble and the list of all of the partners and the stakeholders go as well on the clean air force website who has been helping us do this public outreach, and that clean air force.org.
>> now, we need to recess this item for about five or ten minute, because we've got people waiting around the nation on phones that we issued and so at 10:00, I move that we recess 21 a and b until after we discuss 33, 34, and 35. All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote.
>>
>>
>>
Let's call back to order the item that we were discussing, 21 (a) and (b), and try to finish it. I think we had asked chelin and the others questions that we had. Are there residents here that would like to give comments to the court? If so, please come forward, if if you give us your name, we will be happy to get you coming. There are five chairs and five microphones. It would help me if you want to come forward now and give comments. If you be given by giving your name and we'll get your comments.
>> good morning, Commissioners. Vincent j. Make. I'm opposed to inspection and maintenance program that will test and repair vehicles for excessive emissions, and I brought a written statement to keep my thoughts in order. Order, which requires my glasses. Travis County is in full compliance with e.p.a. Air quality standards. Scientists from the university of Texas tell us that we will be in compliance in 2007, the e.p.a.'s target year for clean air in america. Further, the scientists have said that because of implementation of turf and other on doing factors we can ensure that our air quality will be better than their model's forecast. The clean air force has proposed a very expensive tail pipe testing program that it claims will reduce 2007 ozone even lower, although the clean air force has not quantified this claim. You are being asked to spend hundreds of millions of the citizens' dollars for an unproven plan that at most provides unneeded benefits. For that matter, there is reasonable doubt that there will be any benefits derived from tail pipe testing. Dr. Donald douglas lawson of the national renewable energy research laboratory is on record as stating that vehicle testing and repair programs such as proposed by the clean air force will chiewmly increase ozone levels. Wouldn't be the first time that a misguided government program back fire and made programs worse. Dr. David allen of the university of Texas won the clean air force against adopts obd 2. That is the on board diagnostic testing, type of tail pipe testing anyway, unless the program -- the obd 2 could be shown to work. Set aside the specifics of the I and m program for a moment. Austin doesn't need help with 2007 emissions. It needs to do something about 2004 emissions. The clean air force is no proposal for reducing emissions this year. Yet there's a possibity that we will exceed 85 parts per billion ozone this year. You think it's strange that a body's whose mission is to clean the air would focus on cloning clean air in 2007 and do nothing about dirty air now? The newspaper says that 113,000 central texans with lung ailments are suffering from high ozone. Does the clean air force think that's okay, we'll make the air double clean in 2007? Are you disposed to let these people going on suffering? The libertarian party says emphatically no! There are practical ways which cost a fraction of what tail pipe testing will cost of cleaning the air this year. It doesn't take endless studies, you don't have to jump through e.p.a. Hoops, you don't have to go through tceq, but it does take leadership. The party has presented a plan that guaranties emission reductions much larger than those proposed by the clean air force and costing a fraction of tail pipe testing alone. Unlike the clean air plan our plan is based on science and common sense. Consider the possibility that we remain in compliance this year. If you vote for tail pipe testing today, you will be seeing it fools who stupidly followed bad advice that will cost citizens millions of dollars of their time and millions of their dollars that could have been used to buy food for their children. Suppose which violate this year and you have voted for tail pipe testing, you have done nothing to protect sick people from damaging ozone because the benefits of tail pipe testing, if any, won't be fully apparent until same time in 2006. And yet you enslave citizens to a senseless and expensive program. But if we achieve compliance this year, and you have zlotuchaed against tail pipe testing, you will be viewed as men and women of uncommon wisdom who are faithful to the vocation of public service t last possibility that we have exceedence this year and you have voted against tail pipe testing. In that case you will be seen as having done the right thing. Tail pipe testing ca do us any good before 2006 or later anyway. No loss. Some people threaten that if you vote against tail pipe testing than the e.p.a. And/or tceq will eject the early action exact. That is unlikely but within the realm of possibility. So what happens then? If we remain in compliance, nothing. If we exceed this year, then e.p.a. And tceq will write an air quality plan for us and send us millions of dollars to help pay for it. We will become eligible for millions more in road funds, but only if the road projects are designed for congestion relief. Many people think that doing any deal with e.p.a. And tceq is insanity. First, you are surrenderering sovereignty for something we have next to no control over. Our previous violations and any future exceedenkes if they occur would not have happened without houston exports. Dr. Allen points out that air entering Travis County has been measured at 85 parts per billion ozone. If every human billion were forced out of trachz five years ago we would have had exceednces. That is much less than 1 part per billion. I can't think of any poison that kills when measured in parts per trillion. You could drink a quart of water laced with cyanide with no ill effects if the cyanide were concentrated in parts per trillion. First you should understand that road emissions represents one of the largest sources. Not all of those emissions will be subject to tail pipe testing. All diesels are exempt. There goes 46% of mox. Parts from bastrop and caldwell counties are exempt because their county Commissioners knew from the start that tail pipe testing is nonsense with today's fleet. Cars and trucks from other cities are exempt too including the thou r thousands who transit central Texas every day. Subtract the vehicles that are 25 years old or get one of the other exemptions. Subtract those who cheap by bribing inspector, buying forged inspection sticker, et cetera. What you have left is those vehicles will be subject tail pipe testing will be emitting about 28-tons of nox per day in 2007. 85% of those cars and trucks will be late model with super clean engines. Clean air force projects the reduction of 3-tons per day of nox, but this is hopelessly optimistic. Every they're city where -- with tail pipe testing results a half or less of what the original plans projected might have been possible. No city has ever cleaned its air through tail pipe testing. 1 ton a day is a more reasonable estimate. And as dr. Lawson said, testing may actually increase emissions. Hayes county will probably drop out when the san marcos city council meets next one so 1 ton may be overly optimistic. I'm sure it's clear to you by reducing nox by 1 ton a day or less and a similar reduction of voc will yield a reduction of less than one half part per billion of ozone. That's when we get into the trillions. Tail pipe testing will encourage more people to buy exempt vehicles like diesels or keep exempt vehicles longer than they would have so that over time you find more e-mail with diesels and vehicles that are over 24 years old. Of course these are dirty vehicles, but tail pipe testing is an incentive for people to buy them. On the other hand, some people want to sell dirty vehicles. In that case they will look to sell out of travis or williams son county where they get the best price, they will be selling into bastrop and caldwell and lee and the other surrounding counties people who will probably be commuting into Austin, vehicles that might have been driven 10,000 miles a year will now be driven 30 to 50,000 miles a year, that means you have a tripling or a quintuphing of pollution. I urge you to reject inspection and maintenance.
>> thank you,.
>> good morning, Commissioner, my name is steve raddick, I'm a Travis County resident, I'm here to speak in opposition to the I and m program. We have an opportunity here to observe what other people have done in terms of treating their air quality, learn from their mistakes and look at the good decisions that have been made, and weigh these things in consideration of a plan for us that is flexible and in fact is completely optional. There is no requirement to adopt any plan at this point since we're in compliance with the e.p.a. Standard. And so what I'm going to talk at here is some things that other cities have done. The first item is in denver where they have essentially dropped the obd 2 portion of thaifer inspection test and they've gone totrictly tail pipe emissions. The reason they dropped the obd 2 test is because it doesn't test for emission, it's just a computer they hook up to the car to see if the computer in the car has stored any trouble codes, and douglas h.benevito. The director of public health in colorado, has said a you the did I of tail pipes in vehicles with illuminated lights is only slightly higher than folks whose lights didn't come out. The second item comes a little closer to home, san antonio removed their inspection maintenance -- removed inspection and maintenance from their clean air plan after they realized, as vince pointed out, it doesn't do anything to clean the air. The decide it is not necessary for bexar, comal, guadalupe and wilson counties to do inspection and maintenance testing in order to meet national clean air standards th was revealed in an alamo area council of governments subcommittee meet this afternoon, and this was actually from December is when this decision was made. So there's an example of a neighboring region that has made the correct decision in terms of trying to get their air cleaned up. The next example comes from atlanta which has had an inspection and maintenance program for a long time. Doug lawson was a scientist in colorado who has said he can tell you with absolute certainty that atlanta's air will get worse because of obd 2 testing. And plenty of clean vehicles fail the test and dirty vehicles are able to pass it. In atlanta monthly failure rates are 4 times what they were earlier when the old tail pipe test was used. This is according to the georgia environmental protection division data. In August 2001 about 2,000 cars failed the tail pipe test, but a year later after the spruks of the new test the failure rate sored to more than 9,000 cars. If he had done tail pipe testing on these cars they would find they were in fact perfectly clean, but the owners of these cars were still required to perform expensive repairs. My next article is -- was published in ward's auto.com , the e.p.a. Did a study in in conjunction with the coordinating resource council, using remote sensors to test the emission of vehicles during driving time, the data showed there was no emission in vehicles as they aged in omaha nebraska which has no program compared to chicago and phoenix which do have programs. We see that emissions testing doesn't actually speed up the process of cleaning air, areas that don't have any sort of testing they find the air is improving in quality at the same rate as areas who do have emissions testing. This study duplicated the study that was performed over a decade ago by the university of california where vehicles are randomly selected for road site inspection and testing. Doug lawson, again, who was then in california found that whether a vehicle was registered in an emissions testing area or not had no significant impact on its in use emission levels. There are a couple of other items I would like to talk about here, this is a product called auto tap which is a scanner which is a hand held device that mechanics use to plug into your car to diagnose. These are capable of raising the trouble codes that the obd 2 test relies on. It's not any black market cable stealing device, it's a routine part of diagnosing these problems. Sensors are unplug and check and plugged back in, these things cause trouble codes that have to be cleared when the problem has been resolved. This particular one is available for your palm pilot and it costs $200 and it's a perfectly legal product that anybody did buy to clear the trouble codes out of their computer and have no problems passing the obd 2 test. I should clarify the obd 2 test that we're talking about here applies to all vehicles from 1996 and recent, which are almost all of the cars on the road today. Under the current plan are not subject to any type of tail pipe testing. Just a check to see whether the compute malik rose the car thinks there are any problems or not. Approximate that's all I have prepared. Thank you for your time listening to me.
>> thank you.
>> yes.
>> good morning, Commissioners and judge. My name is wes, I'm a Travis County resident, and just wanted to speak to you on this issue as well. I personally have a master's degree in engineering, but emissions is a whole lot of numbers an information and when I look at it I sometimes getting overwhelmed and when my friend started taking up this effort, I thought this is too much for us to get into. I don't feel like learning all of that. I'm glad y'all are going to do it. Bui think that it is something that y'all should take more time and look into it, because the simple fact is the worst compliance of the clean air force plan is the tail pipe emissions testing. It's one of the most expensive things that they're going to have us do. It's going to be a major hassle for all the drivers if all the surrounding areas. When you fail the test, it's going to be infewer rating especially when you failed it for no reason. And I want to remind you the fact that our air in Austin surprisingly has been getting cleaner. It has in a lot of different cities. The reason that it's been getting cleaner is that a lot of old cars generate nine, ten times, maybe each more pollution than newer cars that have been made with more technology. But those old cars, luckily, are dying and making their way to the junk yard, so just without doing anything because time passes and those old cars are going away, our air has been getting cleaner, but these -- the thing about these tail pipe emissions testing programs, they exempt most of those oldest cars and they exempt the diesel cars and they exempt the heavy duty equipment, the highway equipment that works on the highways, so we're going to be testing the cars that are most likely to be clean. That is just a hassle that we don't all need. We have proposed other things that short-term can make the air cleaner. Longer term, eventually we're going to have to look at the major powerplant, the coal burning powerplants like fayette that are sending as much pollution into Austin, and I forget the number, but it's almost as much as our cars generate together. So I just ask that you slow this thing down and take some time to make sure that the clean air plan we implement does not include the most expensive thing that will give us the least amount of improvement in clean air. Thanks.
>> thank you. Yes, sir?
>> good morning, my name is arthur divianca. I would also like to speak about inspection and maintenance. The vehicle inspection and maintenance part of this plan is a very expensive empty gesture. It will cost everyone some money and some people a lot of money, it will cost everyone time and it will do almost nothing to make Travis County's air any cleaner and I would like to suggest a couple of examples to illustrate how bad it is. Say I'm an individual taking $18,000 a year and I have an old car, so I take my car in for its $30 emissions inspection and the inspector tells me, sorry, your car failed, take to it a mechanic and get it fixed, so I go to my mechanic and tells me, well, your car, like a lot of old cars has worn engine rings, you will have to replace them and that dreaded ring job will cost you $3,000, well, I don't have $3,000 lying around and unfortunately I earn too much to qualify for the low income time extension, and it turns out the department of public safety has decided my car is too dirty to qualify for the $600 individual vehicle waiver, so there's nothing I can do, effectively this plan has just taken my car away from me and perhaps now I can't get to work anymore. If inspection and maintenance were going to turn dirt at this air into beautiful breathable air, maybe it would be worth this effort. But it's going to reduce vehicle emissions by less than 1% and it seems to me that isn't worth anybody's hardship. Say on the other hand that same car does qualify for the $600 individual vehicle waiver, then it gets more absurd. I go to my mechanic and say fix my car for $600, and the mechanic said I can either fix your problem which will cost $3,000 or I cannot fix it. I say I have to spend $600 so do whatever you can. The mechanic said, well, I can use up $600 worth of parts and labor, but if I can't fix the real problem it's not going to make your car cleaner, and I have to shrug and say, fine, do it anyway. Now to get my inspection sticker i've spent $600 and my car is no cleaner than it was before. So in truth vehicle inspection and maintenance is going to create new suffering without relieving any old suffering and to me, that indicates an imprudent plan, so in case I haven't made myself clear, I urge you not to recommend the vehicle inspection and maintenance part of the plan.
>> thank you very much. We will need those four chairs to bring staff back.
>> the city of san marcos did postpone action on this item. Where are we, meaning Travis County, and city of Austin, if the city of san marcos in fact does not approve participation?
>> as it stands now, the draft plan as written, as you see it today, is going to be forwarded to tceq and e.p.a., Regardless of what the city of san marcos does on the 26th because it will almoste too late to change anything. There would be notes made, if they decided not to do -- if they decided no way do we support I and m, that would be noted in the draft and we would forward it on, we would come back in February and basically in order to implement an I and m program in a county, the county Commissioner's court has to request it as well as the largest city in that county. That would be the city of san marcos f the city of san marcos said no, even those hayes county Commissioners voted to approve, considering an I and m in the final plan, san marcos would basically veto that is my understanding now.
>> would you repeat that last part, I'm sorry.
>> san marcos would basically veto heyes county's Commissioner's court decision to request an I and m program in their county. We would be left with Williamson county, the city of Round Rock, Travis County and the city of Austin making a decision whether or not they thought it was appropriate to implement a program in just our go counties. Approximately 8% of the registered vehicles in the 3-county region are currently in hayes county. Hayes county has been encouraged to participate in the program. That's about the same number, quite frankly, as bastrop county has right now, but a majority of the growth over the next three to four year, which is the time frame that we are dealing with, is expected to occur in hayes county only need to open up the paper every day to see a new large development or a new mega super store that is going in over there and that is the reason that hayes county has been talking with us about participating in the program.
>> but houston texans hayes county, the recommendation is for frafs and Williamson to proceed?
>> yes.
>> yes, sir.
>> and the hayes county again, san marcos could still proceed with all of the other measures. Wouldn't tally negate them from the plan.
>> and when were bastrop-- oh they were mentioned?
>> they don't have the future both. We don't see them having the future growth that hayes county does at this point in time.
>> how long have we been looking at taking measures to reduce emissions, Travis County?
>> as a county? Years. I understand it pre-dates my employment here which is now two years. As far as this particular process, we've been working on this early action compact process for a year, exactly a year now, we have had a special stakeholder's committee known as the on road subcommittee who -- I mean committee, who actually had a subcommittee known as the I and m subcommittee who had technical experts from around the state participate in that committee as well as concerned citizens who have been looking exhaustively at how we might implement a program here.
>> now, help me understand why it's important for Travis County to remain in this nonattainment... Scbroo to remain in attainment?
>> yeah, to remain in attainment? We are close to nonattainment and have been there I guess for the last several years.
>> right.
>> we continue.
>> how do you feel about that anyway.
>> we continue to waiver rite around the magical line of 85 parts per billion of ozone. The importance of staying in attainment is number one, you do have specific actions that the federal government will take if you are found to be in noncompliance of the clean air act. Number one, they will come in and implement emission reduction measures for you. They will tell you exactly what to implement and they will implement what we see so far in dallas and houston and other area, they will implement a more expensive I and m program quite frankly, they will make the station owners go out and by a $40,000 piece of equipment. We're trying to make them buy a $15,000 piece of equipment. They will also tell you that any businesses that come into the area have to find jowf ss for the emissions they're going to be producing, not just the same amount of offsets but more offset, they have to pay somebody else to reduce their emissions or they have to pay to buy emissions from around the state. It's a business decision. It's an economic decision for those businesses. The toyota plant, and you've heard it before, in san antonio have told us they did not even consider locating in dallas and houston because of their nonattainment designation. The reason they went to san antonio is -- the reason they even considered san antonio is because it was in compliance of the clean air act so it's an economic development issue as well. Finally you lose all sorts of flexibility in what you get to do and you get programs that are frearngically in perpetuity. Right now we have a little bit of bargaining power, if you will, because we are volunteering to do things early. We fully expect the commission and the e.p.a. Will work with us because we are doing these things. And once you get into a -- it's almost a -- a combative relationship once your declared nonattainment.
>> I would add, too, there's also the risk of delaying or having your federal highway funds withheld, you have to be able to show your long range transportation plan won't produce emissions higher than the level needed to attain attainment, if you can't do that, your highway funds will be withheld until you can.
>> so in attainment, just barely...
>> barely.
>> have been. Also, what does that mean? For the average voter?
>> currently, based on the latest monitor data that we got in 2003, when you councilperson thal with the data from 2002 and 2001 which is what you're required to do for the clean air act, our average for those years is 84.6.
>> our average of what.
>> our average for highest reading in any monitor in our region and the highest reading...
>> read what?
>> they measure ozone.
>> they measure ozone, yes.
>> ozone is?
>> is the -- is basically the mixture of nitrous oxides and volatile organic compounds in sun light and heat. The major ozone season is between April and October, that's when ozone is basically produced here.
>> it's a health issue as well. Ozone can aggravate asthma and lung diseases and cause problem especially for children and elderly, as far as respiratory issues.
>> and my final question is this. It is true that late model vehicles burn much cleaner than earlier ones, than old cars.
>> that's correct.
>> and ...
>> if maintained properly.
>> if maintained properly. And I guess we would expect this trend to continue, right?
>> yes, sir.
>> and why is it that that will not basically cure the problem for us?
>> it in the long-term will help a lot with the problem, but that fleet turn over is not expected to happen in time to cure it by 2007, maybe even by 2012. You also have to consider -- you can't lob at the on road mobile, you have to look at other pieces of the pie, we see area source emissions which are the small businesses expected to increase over time as population grow, we'll have more of those businesses so it's all a big balancing act as well.
>> I have heard y'all tell us that 2007 is a drop-dead date for us. And why is that important?
>> that is under the terms of the early action exact, the 12 local jurisdictions signed, you committed to have three years of clean -- what we call clean data which is the years 2005, 2006, and 2007, our monitoring will show us in compliance by 2007, by the end of the ozone season 2007. That is in the early action exact.
>> what do the monitors show us at the end of this early bad air cycle, which I guess is late summer, early fall, to be in nonattainment.
>> that is the reason that we signed the early action exact. As part of that agreement with the state and the federal government, we agreed to take proactive voluntarily measures to start working on our emissions now in 2004 and there are measures that will take effect in 2004 in this plan and to get into compliance no later than 2007, in the tradeoff for that agreement, the feds agreed if for some reason we were monitor nonattainment before 2007, as lodge as we were meeting the milestones laid out in the document, they would defer our nonattainment designation and all of the bad things that go along with that.
>> as long as we comply with the early action exact by agreement, then we basically have a grace period of at least until 2007?
>> yes, sir.
>> but as a gentleman mentioned a few minutes ago, you can't wait until 2007 to start, the time to start is now.
>> exactly.
>> but with I and m there are certain actions that must be taken by the state of Texas and notice requirements, public input opportunities, all of that will basically take about a year.
>> yes, sir. Ven if we proceedwith delivery .
>> yes, sir.
>> you're looking at 2005, that will give us five years to have I and m in place before 2007, assuming some of the other measures, some of which they mentioned, others they did not mention, but a part of our measure, we would implement immediately. Those are things within our control, the city of Austin can do a whole lot of them. Travis County can do a whole lot of them. Governmental entity, as long as the residents if we get out the word, if we educate folks about why it should be done and that's part of the strategy.
>> we also have our '03 threks agreement that did start place with measures being implemented in 2002, so those measures will be implemented for the '04 season as well.
>> what do we need to do today?
>> basically we're looking for the court to bless the draft clean air action plan as it currently exists in order to forward it on to the -- it will be forwarded on to the state and the feds, but you all wanted to see that draft plan after all the other jurisdictions had basically given comments on it to date. All the other jurisdictions with the exceptions of two have said they are fine with the emission reduction measures as they exist and we should forward them on as written, as you see them today, to...
>> and the participation in the clean air program that we heard about last time yao yeah, we can talk about that real quick. B is one of the measures is to ask to basically ruire all companies with 100 or more employees at any one location to commit to reducing their commute reduction emissions equivalency by 10%. One of the ways you can do that is to become a clean air partner which is an existing program that is sponsored by both the chamber of commerce -- the greater Austin chamber of commerce and the clean air force. It has been in existence for over two years, your backup packet has a list of the current members. It includes Williamson county, the city of Austin, the city of an marcos, as well as a number of private entities including most of the major high tech firms here in the region.
>> leave out the governor's mansion?
>> the governor's mansion?
>> I'm serious.
>>
>> (one moment, please, for change in captioners...)
>>
>>
>> it requires the auto manufacturers to continually lower the emission standards so the new car are cleaner and cleaner. As far as a new car lot, I'm not sure.
>> if they don't maintain that automobile as you go along, that too, that new dar is also going to eventually be run into the ground if it's not maintained. It's an engine that needs to be maintained.
>> and I expect the e.p.a. Probably does some public outreach, but hazel may know more. She's raising her hand over here.
>> it occurs to me it's a little bit like the wellness program. It a lot of individuals who need to take some responsibility for maintaining automobiles no matter what the age.
>> I see what you're saying, but with the newer cars, part of the advantage with the on board diagnostic system is that the check engine light comes on, and in your handbook that you get with that new car, it tells you when the check engine light comes on, you need to take it back into your dealer. D that check engine light is coming on because there's some problem with your emissions equipment on the car since that check engine light is the signal that you need to go back to the dealer and get something done. But with the used cars, there isn't so much that one can do. It's a model year '95 and older car. What we do do in the existing vehicle inspection maintenance program is that we -- if a car is coming in from outside of the inm program into an inm program county, we require that vehicle has to pass the vehicle maintenance test before it can be sold.
>> because I think it's also unfair to not put some responsibility to used car sellers because people will buy only what they can afford. And if they can't afford the maintenance, we're going to put a lot of the burden on them.
>> I know people who can afford to maintain who don't maintain. That part I can sort of see we're okay, we'll implement and we'll catch those folks eventually. But if you can't afford one and the used car lot owners are not having any responsibility on them to do something -- some education or not sell a car unless it's halfway or sort of there with maintenance, you know, I think we're setting some people up for failure and frustration and -- and I wouldn't blame them.
>> we always advise anyone buying a car from a used car dealer to make sure it has a current inspection sticker on it. And if it's an inm county, it should mean it has passed the vehicle inspection maintenance test if it has a current sticker.
>> I would be concerned about the burden, extra burden that would be put on people who cannot afford -- and it is supposed to be a tool for us to circulate around the community fo job or doctor's appointment or whatever. So that does kind of raise questions that are left unanswered.
>> and what -- go ahead.
>> air pollution has no respect for people, and I think it's very imperative that we take a regional approach as far as trying to achieve some level of clean air whereby we do not get into a non-attainment status, which I think is also very expensive. Again, I would really like to have the cost of those particular counties that are now dealing with non-attainment status and trying to correct those problems that's been mandated by the e.p.a. An example, I guess as far as even the equipment as we mentioned earlier to actually test a particular vehicle and the special maintenance program, just the equipment itself, if it's mandated by the e.p.a., You're talking about a 40,000-dollar piece of equipment as opposed to a 15,000-dollar equipment if you move in the direction in which we're trying to go. But there is an assessed cost. And I really would like to know what the el paso county, dallas county and what they're paying for their vehicle inspection maintenance program and let the persons out in the community see how expensive it is if we don't come into compliance and stay within an attainment status because otherwise we will be paying through the nose in the long run and also hurt the economy because no one is going to come here if we're in a non-attainment status because of the things that they'll have to do certain things to comply to make sure that -- with the attainment. So it's a far reaching, very costly process if we do not stay within attainment. Thank you.
>> I can get to -- figures for el paso and dallas and houston, what the program has been costing them in totally.
>> the inm program.
>> I'm not sure if we have any figures for the total spent on every single program that they're going in these areas.
>> I think a ballpark would be --
>> move approval of 21 a and b.
>> second that.
>> although move that we -- also move that we draft a short resolution in which we indicate to the Texas commission on environmental quality fairness council position that if the program does not achieve the desired effect or if we determine that it's unnecessary that Travis County be allowed to petition to terminate the program. Is that basically what you had in mind?
>> that makes me more comfortable as well.
>> the way to highlight this is for us to have a separate document in the form of a resolution that we basically approve, execute. And I have in mind that being prepared for execution this afternoon.
>> okay.
>> can you do that for us?
>> and judge, I think what I'm saying also is that there needs to be -- people who cannot afford a car or the expenditure or maintenance of a car will need to be provided with an alternative mode of transportation. And I think this community needs to take responsibility for tt. Herwise I think we contribute to the unhealthy air that I certainly have tremendous experience with. And I want something done about that.
>> right.
>> and then on top of that I think because the car is a tool for people to get to jobs and move around the community, if they're not going to be able to go that route, then there's going to be a need for another mode of transportation that meets those needs.
>> also with that, would there be any objection to see how the particular counties in the state that I mentioned earlier, that are dealing with their non-attainment situation, especially dealing with maybe other modes of transportation, especially if it affects persons that need alternative transportation. I'm quite sure they may be doing something. I think it would be good for us to look at that in el paso and harris -- houston and also dallas county as far as ensuring that they provide that.
>> and I'm not against government by any means of the imagination, but I think we can make it work for people. And we have to concentrate on that. But I'm not for government running some kind of program that just entangles everybody to the point of where people hate government. I don't want to go there either. And I think we need to be really efficient if we're going to propose that we can do something about a problem, then let's be efficient about it and deliver and let people know that we're serious about efficiency and public service.
>> something that you have?
>> I would like to address a question that Commissioner Gomez came up with as far as what the manufacturers are doing on their part. Every new car is provided with an owner's manual that has a very detailed service schedule. It includes oil changes, having the computer in the car scanned to see if there are any trouble codes and regular tune-up items, spark plug replacement and those sort of things. So they have done their part as much as they can do before the sale to make sure the cars are clean over their usable life.
>> so we do need a reason.
>> yes, ma'am, we need to pay attention when the lights come on and get the car into the mechanic. As far as the light that comes on, I would like to say that there's nothing on the car that actually can measure emissions. All the car can do is do diagnostics on the various sensors that it has. And if the car thinks there is a possibility that the emissions may be as much as 50% over what's allowed by the e.p.a. At the time the car was manufactured, then it turns on the check engine light as a signal to go in and get your car checked. I said earlier that most cars with the check engine light don't have increased emissions. One of the reasons for that, e.p.a. Requires all obd 2 cars, which is 1996 and newer, to be able to verify the operation of every single sensor that's in there. So what the manufacturers have done set up a system of redundant sensors so two or more can be used in combination with the value of other sensors. As a whole it's able to verify that all the sensors are working correctly. The failure of one of those doesn't mean your emissions are going up. With the redundant sensors, the computer in the car is able to run perfectly normally. It an item that need to be addressed as far as maintenance goes, but it's definitely not a sure sign that that car is polluting more than it would have if it wasn't to be fixed.
>> so would you say that because people have failed the following instructions and have their car maintained properly periodically whenever it's recommended, that that is the reason why now we're having to go back and implement these kinds of measures so that we can catch people who haven't followed instructions and are contributing to the pollution?
>> that in fact is a center point of the Travis County libertarian's proposal. We believe that the cost of cleaning up the pollution should be borne by the people who are actually doing the pollution and not by the general population as a whole. That's why our proposal would be to eliminate the testing and the obd 2 portion of the test as we testified. They don't do anything as far as actually cleaning the air. They may keep the e.p.a. Off our back.
>> [inaudible - no mic].
>> all in favor of the motion? That passes by unanimous vote. Thank y'all very much.
>> appreciate it.
>>
>>
>>
Do you want to call this back up right now?
>> might as well.
>> okay. I think we approved it, but -- [ inaudible ].
>> that's how I normally do it, but I am open to anything.
>> where is this going to?
>> to the clean air coalition. Basically who is the -- the one thing I --
>> the Texas commission on environmental quality, including the clean air coalition.
>> it just seems like for me in terms of how we dealt with it over at the state legislature, it was more helpful to write a very direct, to the point one or two paragraph thing as opposed to trying to get through all the whereas clauses. It's just.
>> you want to reduce the whereas clauses to two or three?
>> now therefore be it resolved that the Travis County Commissioners court requests the clean air coalition to include language in the final early action compact clean air action plan, indicating that if the implemented vehicle inspection and maintenance program does not achieve the desired effects or is determined to be unnecessary, Travis County Commissioners can petition tceq to terminate the program.
>> I'm afraid it's just going to get lost. If I were doing this it would be very straightforward in terms of it would be a letter specifically sent to the clean air coalition. Is that who it's going to?
>> yeah.
>> basically --
>> clean air coalition, cc copying the tceq and saying that we would like added to whatever thing that gets approved by tceq that -- and then use this language there. Make it really simple. But all these whereas clauses are like --
>> okay. A letter, not a resolution.
>> I'm very no nonsense on this kind of thing.
>> why don't we just shorten this? I kind of disagree with you. It seems to me that a resolution that has a signature of five members of the Commissioners court would have more immediate impact than a letter because I get letters all the time.
>> I mean a letter signed by all five of us.
>> when I see resolution, resolving is more than a writing to me. I do -- it seems to me we could easily eliminate the first whereas clause, the second.
>> do we need the 78th legislature paragraph?
>> we can eliminate it. We can eliminate the next to the last whereas clause.
>> uh-huh.
>> so we've got two above want we've got whereas Travis County understands... (indiscernible). We can eliminate that. Because of where is going, going to the state basically.
>> and the be it resolved, that's -- [ inaudible ]
>> I think we can eliminate that because we've got to do it anyway, right? So we're left with the third and fourth whereas clauses, and the now therefore.
>> yes.
>> I would increase the -- I would enlarge the font on all of them.
>> yes, sir.
>> and I would have a place for us to date it today.
>> yeah.
>> oh, yeah.
>> not December 10th any more.
>> and so now therefore clause is fine as it is?
>> you need to change the date, it says December 10th of 2002.
>> good eye.
>> I'm sorry?
>> (indiscernible).
>> I can go upstairs and bring it back down and have you sign it.
>> let's do that.
>> thank you.
>> do we need a new motion, judge?
>> no, I think our motion covers that.
Last Modified: Wednesday, January 21, 2004 11:43 AM