Feb 01, 2021 Committee on the Environment on 2021-02-01 9:00 AM

>> Good morning. Welcome to the committee on the environment I will open the meeting at 9.08 a.m. on February 1st. The first item is item 1A receive nominations and elect a member of the committee. Is this something you particularly want? >> I was about to nominate you and throw you right under the bus. >> I will take it. I don't know why I would like to do it. It only gives you the task of paying attention to the agenda closely. But that's fine. In which case, I accept. I better look up the agenda so I can read the items. I will let staff team up. Give me a moment. Yes, I accept. I suppose we have to have a vote now. >> I will move appointment of Paul Meltzer as chair. >> Okay. And let's collectively ask all in favor to say aye. >> Aye. >> Okay. I'm now the chair. And I will -- you need to give me a moment to call off the agenda. >> There's also the vice chair. >> Oh, okay. We could make Connie do it. I mean, that's not bad. It's good when you're a new member to at least have a reason to kind of, you know, learn the process. I nominate Connie for vice chair. >> I'll second that. That's just fine. >> All in favor? >> Aye. >> Aye. It's going to be interesting when he finds out that he won. So, yeah, I apologize. I decided to use my tablet for the video access. And therefore I don't have it for showing you the agenda. >> Okay. Let's take a two-minute recess. Have we not been on during the whole approval of the minutes? >> Kim is double-checking. >> Okay. We have approval to keep going. From Billy. So we'll take that. All right. Kathryn Barnett, sustainability manager. And we've talked about the flooding of the green belt. And we have an opportunity to participate with the core. So I'm going to pull up my presentation. >> Can you all see that? >> Yes. >> So we had a meeting on site with Texas parks and wildlife, the core of engineers, the green belt alliance and some other stakeholders. And the core of engineers throughout the idea of the continuing authorities program, to participate in the program, the city would need to just send a letter to the Fort Worth district requesting evaluation of the flooding along the green belt corridor. It's a pretty good program. They come in and they study why it's flooding and meant to be a pretty short study. So the logjam, we were out there to look at the logjam removal that really didn't help our bigger issue. They only removed 500 yards south of the bridge and everything. You can still see the silt and the sand bars if you look south of the bridge, if you've driven out there. So that's when the idea, we were walking the trail and looking and that's when the idea of this cap program came up. So it supports the smaller community projects without a lengthy study, funding for flood risk management, ecosystem restoration, erosion control. It does not require congressional authorization, so it's all done here at the Fort Worth district, which is a nice speedy process usually. And it's a cost share basis with the sponsoring agency. Brings in, they like to do the multipurpose projects, so the green belt already qualifies for that because it has the recreation, it has the flood control, it connects Louisville and Ray Roberts. And I mean everybody's already partnered in it one time to get it going, so nobody wants to see it flooded for the rest of its existence. The great thing about it is phase one is funded 100% up to 100,000 by the Corps of Engineers. If it went over 100,000, then it would be a 50/50 cost share. They do a pre-assessment with the first 50 of that 100,000, and the parties get to determine if they want to go forward after that 50,000. If it looks like it's going to be a bigger problem, you can just say no, we don't want to do it, we're not going to move forward from here. The Corps can say that, the city can say that, the sponsoring agency can determine whether or not they want to go ahead and complete the feasibility after phase one. So after they do the pre-assessment, that's when any cost share documents would be developed. And like I said, after 100,000, it would be 50/50 with the partner agency. So if it's cost prohibitive, everybody can choose not to move forward. So the $100,000 from the Corps, the city of Denton can be the lead partner, but we can also bring in other agencies to partner. Texas Parks and Wildlife, since they're responsible for maintenance, would be an option. The Green Belt Alliances said that they would be interested in helping raise funds for this. They've been very successful with fundraising for projects on the Green Belt in the past. So if we needed anything for the feasibility study, I feel like we could get the partners for that. And then if the project is feasible, then you can always bring in additional partners for the non-federal funding share. And we've done in-kind for several of our Corps projects in the past as well. So either a little bit of construction work or when we built the Clear Creek wetlands, we did some work out there as in-kind for our contribution. So today I'm just seeking recommendation from the Committee on the Environment to proceed to counsel to talk about a letter of request for the feasibility study. Do you want to take it down now? Ripper 10, any discussion? I mean, I guess my question would be, is there any downside that I don't see any based on what's been presented? You know, we're not obligated to more than we can do. We get to make decisions. It all points along the way about money and commitment. And it seems like a great idea to me. I'm similarly inclined. The one question I have in the back of my mind is whether there's anything kind of counterintuitive about flooding. It's just a question I think worth asking early. You know, when I grew up, we heard forest fires, the worst thing in the world. I've got Smokey the Bear, only you can prevent forest fires. Then we, you know, as time went on, we started hearing more about actually you need a certain amount of forest fires for the forest to operate properly. And I just wonder, is there anything like that that we're missing? You know, the benefit of the green belt is when it's accessible is the opportunity to appreciate nature, not to, you know, bend into our wishes. Is there anything sort of beneficial? I mean, the flooding may well be a manmade, probably is, manmade effect of the creation of the lake in the first place. But I'm just asking the question, is there a beneficial effect of it being flooded so that maybe ideally our recreation should be kayaking there or something? And/or could that question be taken up as part of the study? Anything sort of beneficial about it? We've had that discussion with the Corps of Engineers and with the Interested Parties because the area was intended to be flooded from time to time by the Corps of Engineers. It's floodplain and floodway. It's just gotten to the extent where it's underwater for a lot longer than was ever intended. So there's some theories that because the two lakes are so close that there's more opportunity for the silt to build up in that part of the stream. And that could be part of the problem. We just don't have as much flood storage within the stream. So it may be expanding one of the wetlands there to hold more water. So I think that what we would end up with hopefully would be a project that could create more habitat and still make the area available for recreation. Well, I'm glad that the topic has been evaluated. I would just ask that, you know, since this is a committee on the environment, you know, that the -- yeah, that the environmental -- that we don't go into it narrowly with a specific result in mind that Kat is going to be involved in this meeting, you know, that we periodically just re-ask the question. It's, you know, about the environmental impact rather than the goal. You know, if you get my drift. I do. And we had some stakeholders that would have preferred all of the logs to be removed all the way down to Lake Louisville. But that's fishing habitat. So the Corps definitely wasn't in favor of that. So it is a talking point along the way. One other question. Were the restrooms going to be rebuilt? Is that part of the concept? The restrooms were installed in 2018. And they're one of the packaged concrete restrooms. So they'll have to be completely cleaned. I don't know how much the rehab on that's going to be now. Is that -- is that part of what's done? It's part of Texas Parks and Wildlife. They did have the funding to rehab that area, but chose not to move forward with the project because of the continued flooding. But, I mean, if -- you know, if we manage through this group to address that, would we also then, you know, hope to see them restored? Absolutely. Absolutely. Anything further, Jesse? Not for me. So I'll entertain a motion. I'll move -- well, let me get the item in front of me so I know how to word it. Sorry. I move that we recommend to council joining the request for the continuing authorities program. I'll second. All in favor? Aye. You have your direction. Thank you. Okay. Moving on to item D, receive a report and hold a discussion on the summary of greenhouse gas management and seek direction on new and existing GHG management projects. Okay. Good morning, council members. James Douglas, conservation programs coordinator. Let me get the presentation pulled up. All right. All right. And how's that for everybody? Visible. Perfect. All right. So here today to give a brief review of where we're at today with the greenhouse gas management program. And then really here today to seek some guidance on the timeline moving forward. So today's presentation is really going to be two parts. Like I said, we'll have a brief review of the background, the tools that we use, and the timeline so far to date. And then as we move into some recent updates, some of these will potentially impact how we move forward with the program. And so we're, as I said, really seeking that guidance for the next few months as we move forward. Just briefly, some background definitions. So the two main definitions that kind of guide what we do. Greenhouse gas emissions are source identified gases that treat trap heat and earth's atmosphere. And the three that we really focus on for the purposes of our management program is carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrogen dioxide. The second definition there is carbon equivalence, which is the metric that we take a look at, and it's the relative warming potential of each one of those gases as they relate to carbon dioxide. And so an example of that would be methane's carbon equivalent is 28 when you take into consideration the time period of 100 years. Just as some background, many cities, both nationally and internationally, have identified greenhouse gas reduction as a means of local and global environmental improvement. And the next bit there in italics is really the local portion. And so greenhouse gas emissions are a wide-reaching environmental metric. And basically what we mean by that is it overlaps with a lot of different things that we take a look at, everything from energy conservation to transportation when we're looking to find an apples to apples metric. Greenhouse gases really kind of fit the bill there. I wanted to just briefly mention how it relates to the recently adopted sustainability framework. So chapter two is air quality and greenhouse gas management. And goals three, four, and six are really what we're kind of here to talk about today in terms of setting reduction targets, annually updating the greenhouse gas inventory and contribution analysis, which I'll touch on. And creating a greenhouse gas mitigation plan is goal six, and that's a little bit later in the future. So briefly, the tools that we use are all three tools are under the overarching umbrella of the ClearPath management software, and that's provided to us through ICLEI. The greenhouse gas inventory is what we conduct annually, and that's the quantification of carbon emissions. We do that for both the municipal entity and the community as a whole, and those are in three scopes, direct, consumption, and indirect. The contribution analysis, which we'll see in the timeline, was introduced recently, and that estimates the change from year to year and helps us better analyze that data. And most recently, we introduced the forecasting tool, which estimates carbon emissions based on forecasted data sets and also things like estimated population growth, housing growth, things of that nature. So here's the timeline so far to date, and we started doing the inventories annually in 2015-2016, and as you can see in 2018 is when we really started to introduce those extra tools that are going to help us bring the program forward over the next couple years. Once again, just a brief summary to date. You can see there the increasing emissions on the municipal side but the decreasing emissions on the community side, and then we also have the pie charts there indicating what the major sectors of those different scopes are. So that was just a brief summary of where we are so far, a bit of review. We did want to mention these recent updates, which will really guide us as we move forward. So the first one, of course, is the start of the Citizen Sustainability Advisory Council, and so we feel that this is a topic under the umbrella of the sustainability framework that will more than likely be of interest to that group. And so the -- I'll get into it on the next slide, but the current plan is to give a similar presentation to them at the start of that group. We do have that updated forecasting information, so that was our most recent task with the program from the Committee on the Environment was to get that updated forecasting information and present some options for the target setting, and so that analysis has been completed, and we are looking to summarize that and bring that forward during our next presentation, and once again just continuing with the regional greenhouse gas inventory, and so as you know, the inventory lags a year behind, and so we'll be starting up the 2020 inventory here over the next month, and so we will have that data within the next four to five months to present as well. So the next steps, once again just to continue with the inventory and contribution analysis annually to keep us most up to date on that data. The target setting and the updated forecasting information is slated to be the follow-up presentation to this, so that can potentially take place in March or April, and we're really seeking recommendations on that timeline. So as I said, we want to give a very similar presentation to this, to the Sustainability Advisory Council just to bring everybody up to date and on the same page, and so I'm really just seeking guidance on that timeline moving forward, and then looking really at that target setting presentation as sort of the next step for the program, and with that I will take questions and pull the slides down. I thought that was informative. I didn't have any additional questions or no concerns about sending it forward to the Sustainability Advisory Committee. I think it may be useful to put a little extra detail in when you speak with them just because we're really accustomed to all the terms, and we've seen them many times, but it would be helpful for them to know kind of the full toolkit we've got available because they'll have lots of questions. For sure, and I think we definitely wanted to do that. We know it'll be a two-step sort of the review and bringing everybody up to date on the first hand, and then sort of the new materials on the second one, and so kind of two separate meetings there looking at the timeline moving forward was our thought process. Well, you know, if the analysis is complete, I'm incredibly eager to dig into the detail. I think it is probably worth maybe thinking aloud a little between us and both of them on the difference between what this committee would do and what we would task the citizen committee to do. You know, the work that needs to be done, in my opinion, is to look at the same time at possible goals along with sets of tactics that would attach to those different goal levels so that, you know, we're looking for desirable and feasible and so that, you know, we're kind of choosing the goals, you know, with our eyes open about where do we need to get to and do we see a path to get there. And I would see the sustainability advisory council as being tasked with really fleshing out policy proposals, you know, under each of the kind of generalized tactics. I think the goal setting, I don't know, I teed up for conversation in terms of like, you know, is it that we set a goal and then they go, that's a completely inadequate goal or, you know, do you have any thoughts on that? About how to differentiate between the roles? You know, I kind of think of it as analogous to the airport committees. You know, the airport committees, the advisory committee is primarily stakeholders, you know, and the council members may or may not be stakeholders in a particular way. You know, I don't have an aircraft and I don't really use the airport much, but it's in my district and as an economic development driver, so I have an interest in it. The folks on the sustainability committee are generally more knowledgeable than I am, I think, once we get them all appointed up on whether it's greenhouse gas goals or whether it's, you know, emissions generally or waste management, all those sorts of things. So having them kind of distilling things down for us a little bit, maybe. So maybe it's actually sort of starts, you know, starts with them and then comes back to us to anyway. Yeah, I kind of think so because like if you think about an airport lease question, they don't get to decide anything on the airport advisory committee, but they get to talk about it because they all, they're familiar with the players out there, they're familiar with the tenants and the historical roles and all that kind of stuff, and they can, they give really good input at the ground level. Yeah, so we want the advisory committee to advise on, right, imagine that, on an appropriate goal with the knowledge of the implied, you know, set of actions that would go with that, and then we can kind of take it from there. Yeah, yeah, and then we kind of come up here to the legislative level and say, well, gosh, man, the budget implications, or the, you know, whatever the different concerns are at the council level, and then make a recommendation forward to the full council. Yeah. Does that give you direction? Yep, absolutely, and especially specific to this item, and I think Catherine will touch a little bit on the committee as well later, and so I think that's good insights for that as well. Do you need anything else from us at this point on this item? Nope, I think that was, that was perfect, so I think, I think we'll... All right, well, thank you very much, and yeah, I can't think of anything more important or that will have bigger implications for this committee than that, so I'm super interested in seeing that move forward as soon as we can get the committee in place. So let's move on to item E, Receive a Report and Hold a Discussion on Updates and Energy Reporting for State Senate Bill 241. This is actually me again, so I'm just going to switch presentations here. All right, so for this presentation, we're looking to give a little bit of history and background on the past iterations of Senate Bill 241 and then obviously talk about this iteration starting here in 2019. We're going to go over Denton's reporting history and talk about some new initiatives and partnerships that have come along with this iteration of the bill. We'll talk about the requirements and then we will seek guidance on a resolution for an energy reduction target, which is part of those requirements. So just a little background here, this Senate Bill 241 began in 2001 as Senate Bill 5. It is a state Senate bill and the goal is to reduce air emissions associated with electricity consumption in ozone non-attainment areas and so it does only apply to those counties that are in ozone non-attainment or near non-attainment. It's administered by the State Energy Conservation Office, so they're the overseeing entity there, and it requires that government entities and public entities submit energy consumption data on an annual basis and establish a target to reduce energy consumption annually, and it also encourages options for improved energy efficiency through education mechanisms and things like that. So this just goes over the different iterations of the bill. So it was updated in 2007, 2011, and 2019 as well, each with a different bill number there, and then this most recent one was adopted in September of 2019. So once again, this is an environmentally based piece of legislation and a tool for air quality improvement. Based on the reports that were collected in 2018, an estimated 1.3 tons of NOx were reduced through the program reporting, and NOx, of course, is an ozone precursor, and so that's why that is a pollutant of interest for the ozone non-attainment. On the right-hand side here, we have a flow chart that just shows you the flow of data, and so local governments take that energy report, that annual report, and they send that to the State Energy Conservation Office. It's then passed to Texas A&M Energy Systems Laboratory for further analysis. So they'll do things such as weather normalization and basically processing the electricity data and converting that into the air quality metrics that they're looking for. They'll pass that information to the TCEQ, and they will then use that as a part of their biennial report for the Texas emissions reductions plan, and so that's the one that they give to the Texas legislature. And so it does have a bit of a journey, but these reports ultimately do influence future policy. So Denton has reported the energy consumption data to CECO every year since the bill started in 2001. During the last iteration of the bill, which was Senate Bill 898, from the 2011-2012 timeframe, Denton saw an annual average reduction in electricity consumption of 3.75 percent, and so you can see those values there. So here are some of the changes and improvements that are associated here in 2020 with Senate Bill 241. On the right-hand side in the graph here, we can see how many reports were submitted to the State Energy Conservation Office by local governments in each of the following years. You can see a jump there in 2019. This is in part due to some new partnerships from the State Energy Conservation Office, so they partnered with the North Central Texas Council of Governments as well as the South Central Partnership for Energy Efficiency as a resource. It's known as SPEAR, and so those two groups did a lot of outreach and education to local governments in all of the different ozone non-attainment areas, and so a real increase in reporting there, which is beneficial to all of us as we get that increased data, beneficial for the region as well. 2020 also saw the addition of increased data collection. Now, these are all optional data that you can include, including water, natural gas, EV charging, and renewable energy. The bill refers specifically to electricity consumption, but that doesn't give a real complete picture of energy usage as a whole, and so even things like water and wastewater have energy consumption from pumping and things like that, and so to get a real full picture of what the energy profile looks like, it's beneficial to include those optional data sources, and so that's what we've done there for the 2020 report. And then this is also what's known as a baseline year, and so the reports that are submitted from now until 2026 at the end of the legislation will all be compared to this baseline report from the 2020 calendar year. So just summarizing the SB 241 requirements, completing the annual report of energy consumption from government facilities, and then once again the optional reporting there for those different categories, and then the last one is to establish a target to reduce electricity consumption by 5% annually, starting with the baseline year following the September 2019 implementation, and so the 2020 calendar year was the first full year following the passing of that bill, and so that will serve as the baseline year when we set that target. And so we're seeking recommendation to draft a resolution for the Denton City Council to establish that target to reduce electricity consumption by 5% annually, and attached in your backup is also a copy of the resolution that was passed back in 2011-2012 for the previous iteration of the bill, which was that Senate Bill 898. And so we're just looking for recommendation to draft similar language and bring that to the Denton City Council. And I will take questions. Pratap? I'm still kind of formulating if you have one ready to go. Well, I have a few. The core one I have is just, you know, Wi-Fi. Is there a particular goal that we're trying to get to over a certain amount of time, and is that attached to something, or is it just sort of, you know, a plausible sounding number? It's less than 10. It's more than nothing. It has been five since they added that requirement. I'm not sure what the initial logic was behind the 5%, but it has been historically. That has been the target to set. I mean, personally, I don't find that, you know, a compelling rationale. I don't reject it, you know, the number. I just, I would think we could take the opportunity to have a more thoughtful goal that's more defensible. Otherwise, how do you debate it, you know, when it goes to council? What are the merits of five? I mean, we can say reduction is a good thing, but, you know, just, yeah, I would be interested in more of a rationale where we're trying to get to by when, by. And we can ask those questions of some of the educating partner organizations that we have some pretty regular contact with them, so we can definitely bring that up. And I think that will, you know, pay off in the next presentation to council when that's in the backup or in the presentation. And then I'll pause to check back in with Pro Tem, if you've got something you want to. No, I thought that was a good, that was kind of my core question as well. I mean, I see where the number came from, but what's behind the number? And, you know, we've done similar resolutions and in due course over the years. So I don't, I certainly don't have any problem recommending that same resolution again to council, but I agree. I think that'll be the questions. Like, well, wait a minute, where'd this number come from? Why is it our good number that we like? And then the, thank you. Then the other question I want to ask is about the data gathering. Is there an opportunity or any benefit to some kind of community involvement in local monitoring or, you know, where through community education and involvement we can kind of enrich the date, the tracking on usage is, would that be? So the tracking of this data is just the extrapolation of if government facilities, so government buildings, reduce their electricity consumption by X amount and then. And the goal is government usage? Yes, this is, yes, this, this is only related to public entities and their direct usage. Okay, that answers that. I don't know what you're, you probably said it, but I apologize if I didn't register what the deadline is on this. Do we have an opportunity to, you know, to hear back on the point you raised earlier before you go to council? Yes, so the previous resolution is covered through 2021, and so this one will go through 2026 when adopted. Okay. That's all I have. And let's see, you're just seeking direction, right, there's not a, it's a discussion. Correct. We've done it, we've had the discussion. All right, thank you. So let's pretend if you have anything else, unless I'll move to the next item. No, sir, I'm good. Okay, thank you. Thanks. Let's move on to item F, receiver report, hold the discussion and give staff direction on the proposed industrial pretreatment streamlining permit. Okay, thank you. Okay, thank you. Okay. Oh, you're on mute, Deborah. Now, better. Yep. Okay. You're audible. Thank you. Good morning. Members of the committee on the environment. My name is Deborah Vieira. I'm with environmental services and I will be presenting to you about the proposed changes to chapter 26 of the report. I will be presenting to you about the proposed changes to chapter 26 of the report. I will be presenting to you about the proposed changes to chapter 26 of the report. I will be presenting to you about the proposed changes to chapter 26 of the report. I will be presenting to you about the proposed changes to chapter 26 of the report. I will be presenting to you about the proposed changes to chapter 26 of the report. I will be presenting to you about the proposed changes to chapter 26 of the report. I will be presenting to you about the proposed changes to chapter 26 of the report. I will be presenting to you about the proposed changes to chapter 26 of the report. I will be presenting to you about the proposed changes to chapter 26 of the report. I will be presenting to you about the proposed changes to chapter 26 of the report. I will be presenting to you about the proposed changes to chapter 26 of the report. I will be presenting to you about the proposed changes to chapter 26 of the report. I will be presenting to you about the proposed changes to chapter 26 of the report. I will be presenting to you about the proposed changes to chapter 26 of the report. I will be presenting to you about the proposed changes to chapter 26 of the report. I will be presenting to you about the proposed changes to chapter 26 of the report. I will be presenting to you about the proposed changes to chapter 26 of the report. I will be presenting to you about the proposed changes to chapter 26 of the report. I will be presenting to you about the proposed changes to chapter 26 of the report. I will be presenting to you about the proposed changes to chapter 26 of the report. I will be presenting to you about the proposed changes to chapter 26 of the report. I will be presenting to you about the proposed changes to chapter 26 of the report. I will be presenting to you about the proposed changes to chapter 26 of the report. I will be presenting to you about the proposed changes to chapter 26 of the report. I will be presenting to you about the proposed changes to chapter 26 of the report. I will be presenting to you about the proposed changes to chapter 26 of the report. I will be presenting to you about the proposed changes to chapter 26 of the report. I will be presenting to you about the proposed changes to chapter 26 of the report. I will be presenting to you about the proposed changes to chapter 26 of the report. I will be presenting to you about the proposed changes to chapter 26 of the report. I will be presenting to you about the proposed changes to chapter 26 of the report. I will be presenting to you about the proposed changes to chapter 26 of the report. I will be presenting to you about the proposed changes to chapter 26 of the report. I will be presenting to you about the proposed changes to chapter 26 of the report. I will be presenting to you about the proposed changes to chapter 26 of the report. I will be presenting to you about the proposed changes to chapter 26 of the report. I will be presenting to you about the proposed changes to chapter 26 of the report. I will be presenting to you about the proposed changes to chapter 26 of the report. I will be presenting to you about the proposed changes to chapter 26 of the report. I will be presenting to you about the proposed changes to chapter 26 of the report. I will be presenting to you about the proposed changes to chapter 26 of the report. I will be presenting to you about the proposed changes to chapter 26 of the report. I will be presenting to you about the proposed changes to chapter 26 of the report. I will be presenting to you about the proposed changes to chapter 26 of the report. I will be presenting to you about the proposed changes to chapter 26 of the report. I will be presenting to you about the proposed changes to chapter 26 of the report. I will be presenting to you about the proposed changes to chapter 26 of the report. I will be presenting to you about the proposed changes to chapter 26 of the report. I will be presenting to you about the proposed changes to chapter 26 of the report. I will be presenting to you about the proposed changes to chapter 26 of the report. I will be presenting to you about the proposed changes to chapter 26 of the report. I will be presenting to you about the proposed changes to chapter 26 of the report. I will be presenting to you about the proposed changes to chapter 26 of the report. I will be presenting to you about the proposed changes to chapter 26 of the report. I will be presenting to you about the proposed changes to chapter 26 of the report. I will be presenting to you about the proposed changes to chapter 26 of the report. I will be presenting to you about the proposed changes to chapter 26 of the report. I will be presenting to you about the proposed changes to chapter 26 of the report. >> I don't have any questions. I'm okay with sending it forward to council. Once again, I think when it gets to council, it might need a little more detail on -- the full council won't be very familiar with this permitting process at all, I don't think. >> Yeah, I would be patient and be interested in -- particularly the public who follows this meeting, getting to hear some greater level of detail. My underlying question is what protections are being compromised, if any, in the streamlining? The purpose of the regulation is to protect health and safety and environmental quality. I'm not especially motivated to streamline removing of any protections. I take it that's not the intent. But I think it bears some inspection of the detail to build confidence that nothing is being lost. >> The intent is just to eliminate any administrative and technical burden. One of the perfect samples is the ability to eliminate any administrative and technical burden. One of the perfect samples is it allows the control authority of the POWs to determine if a particular industry doesn't have a pollutant as a part of the discharge process, if they can actually reduce the number of sampling for that particular pollutant. For example, just keep in mind that all industries subject to pretreatment, they have to self-monitor themselves, they have to test and send those results to the city, as well as the city actually conducts those samplings. So in those instances, and there's a whole slew of parameters that they have to test for. There's industries that they don't have some of those pollutants as a part of their processes, so they will never have those present as a part of the discharge. So these changes will allow the city to determine after they have demonstrated that those pollutants are not part of the discharge, not to continue sampling for it on a regular basis. So they still have to demonstrate that pollutant is not part of the effluent makeup. And then after that point, we will not require them to keep sampling for something that will not show up in their effluent. That's the typical example of some technical redundancies that they have to do. Just keep in mind, those will benefit the small and medium-sized industry, where they don't have to keep doing the same stuff because it is not present. For the bigger companies, that's not a big issue. The other things that allows is to provide the flexibility on the sampling techniques that some industry can use that are more applicable to them and easier to do. So again, they will still have to sample. They will still have to report all the results. We will still have to go and sample it ourselves to verify all that information. However, the techniques that they can use will facilitate that process as well. >> Are the techniques less sensitive? You know, the proposed new, more permissive, streamlined techniques? >> No, they are not. It's just that allow them to use other methodologies, and those methodologies are not currently permitted. >> Why are those methods not currently permitted? >> Well, it could be by the time that the regulation was adopted, what was the processes in place and what was the industry used to perform. It could be that new techniques have developed and our new equipment have been more sensitive, so therefore those methodologies are now available and acceptable to them. >> So, you know, I would be interested since we get another bite at the apple since we're talking about sending this to council, but my request would be that as part of that presentation, that there be a kind of side by side, what's in the old, what's in the new, and rationale at a fairly granular level. So the public can see, you know, my concern is even if it's -- my concern is that there must be a reason that something wasn't permitted. If it's new, didn't exist before, that would be persuasive, but if it's just like something is maybe cheaper but would not be as, you know, accurate or protective, you know, I might look at that differently. So I assume that this is not asking for anything new that you have all this, so I would just request that that be sort of laid out in a digestible side by side, you know, format with old, new, and rationale. Is that all right? >> Yeah. Will the red line version of the ordinance help you as well? >> Not me. It might help. Might help someone else, but different people absorb information differently. So what I'm asking for, I think, works for me and I think would be sort of digestible by, you know, by others as well. >> Okay. Will do. >> I mean, I don't mean to be steamrolling. Pretend, I mean, as, you know, do you have any objection to what I'm asking? >> No. I think that's a good question. I'm one of those that a red line might be kind of helpful. >> I was just looking at red lines. >> But, yeah, and sometimes I catch something in a red line that I don't always catch in something more visual. >> It happens separately. I offer up two options. We say, okay, both. >> Yeah. I think that would be very good information going forward for council. What are we doing differently? And then, of course, the public, some folks very interested in these topics would ask us for exactly that information. >> Will do. >> Okay. Thank you very much. I appreciate that. That will involve some work. I know you have the source material, but it's work. So with that, I'll move on then to the next item, which is item D, management reports, action items, matrix. The matrix is included. There's three items there listed. One of them does have a date in April to come back, and the other two have been on there for some time. So I'm sure there's been previous discussion, but we have staff available if there's any questions on those or if you'd like something added to the matrix. >> Rutan? >> I don't have anything additional. I'm eagerly awaiting that first one. As we are in a lot of different sectors of the city organization, so the others, I'm just patient. >> Yeah. Me as well. So let's move on to item H, which is consideration of a meeting schedule. I think we used to do these monthly. Is there a reason why we would or wouldn't do that? >> I think we have -- I'm muted. No, I'm not. Okay. I think we have the virtual down, so I think we're good to go monthly again. Nine o'clock seems to work better doing it before the luncheon rather than after because we don't know what time the luncheon will end. So we don't have as much flexibility. >> We know when it will begin. >> Exactly. >> I mean, that's fine with me. Rutan? >> Very well for me as well. >> We'll check with Mr. Baker to make sure. >> Oh, no. Majority here. >> Oh, you're right. >> Actually, you know, I don't mean to be too light. I really -- I don't know what his obstacles were, and I hope he's okay. So I'll just say that. >> I think we already had a scheduling conflict. >> Oh, okay. Very good. Well, that's everything, then. So with that, we will adjourn at 2 p.m. >> Thank you. >> See you later. >> Bye. >> Bye.