Sustainability and Transportation Committee

CITY OF PORTLAND, MAINE Committee on Sustainability and Transportation Councilor Regina Phillips (D3), Chair Councilor Pious Ali (At-Large) Councilor Anna Bullett (D4) Approved Minutes September 9, 2025 Members Present: Councilor Phillips, Councilor Ali, Councilor Michniewicz, Councilor Pelletier Staff Present: Troy Moon, Katie Tims, Greg Jordan, Dena Libner, Masi Ngidi-Brown, Paul Bradbury, Tony Wirkus, Michael Murray, Michael Goldman, Rachell Millette, Ethan Hipple Meeting was called to order. July 9, 2025 Meeting Minutes The July 9, 2025 meeting minutes were approved unanimously. Sustainability Updates Presented by Troy Moon and Katie Tims, Sustainability Office Sustainable Neighborhoods Program issued community mini grant awards to build social resilience and improve social connectivity through collaboration on projects. The office received over 40 applications and will update more as they unfold. Encourage the use of block party and community cleanup kits. The office also received a grant from Maine DEP to improve our community composting program and build kiosks. Transportation Updates Presented by Mike Murrary and Franklin St Revisioning conducted public outreach over the summer and held a pop-up tabling event at the East Bayside Block Party in June. Coordinating with the consultant and Maine DOT to develop and define preferred alternatives and plan. Libbytown Safety & Accessibility Project working to achieve PDR status to allow it to go out for bid once a suitable funding source is found. Brighton Ave improvements continue to work with MDOT to determine the best plan and then will proceed to the PDR stage. A few Forest Avenue projects underway: marginal way project is led by Maine DOT, Bedford St to Woodford St is a conceptual plan to focus on the road diet that will include a temporary striping plan & lead to full implementation when funding becomes available. The State and High two way conversion is led by Maine DOT, which is in the process of receiving the appropriate BikePed design which is being coordinated with the Forest Ave and York St project. Union Branch Connector Pathways - the phase 1 bid is out for construction, expected Spring of 2026 construction will begin. Completed the RFP and scope of work for the Comprehensive Transportation Plan has been submitted to the purchasing department for approval. Expected to put out the RFP this fall. Adopting a naming policy for public facilities Presented by Masi Ngidi-Brown Interim JDEI Director, Masi Ngidi-Brown presented the name and renaming policy concept proposal that will formalize the City of Portland’s naming/renaming of City assets process and develop a policy. Ngdi-Brown reviewed each section of the draft Ordinance Chapter 25 - Naming CIty Assets, which will create a more formal and rigorous process that broadens inclusion, widens community engagement, improves transparency, and effectively aids the City Council in making decisions to name/rename City streets, parks, facilities, and other public places. The article is intended to establish a clear and consistent framework for the naming and renaming of the City’s public spaces, streets, buildings, and other landmarks and assets owned by the City. Public comment on adopting a naming policy for public facilities A resident praised the work of the interim JDEI Director on their work and hopes the JDEI office can hire the position permanently. They also said they hope the office can focus on more substantive work beyond this issue in the future. Carter Waldron, a Portland resident, said this naming policy is terrific and it is important work and appreciated the thoughtful presentation. Councilor Comments on adopting a naming policy for public facilities Councilor Michniewicz asked if this applies to all city assets, including generically named ones? Masi Ngidi-Brown answered that it is not to look at what we currently have. It is a tool to use to guide decisions about naming future city assets. Corporation counsel, Rachel Millette seconded Masi Ngidi-Brown’s comment and said that this does not apply to city assets already named and that they would have to go through the renaming process if so. Councilor Ali liked the ordinance and said it has a lot of community engagement in it. He asked how did you come to the thousand signatures? Masi Ngidi-Brown shared that the general number for other municipalities for petitions is 500 signatures. They chose a thousand signatures to encourage people to be very thoughtful and intentional about the impactful decision to rename a city asset. It is not a fixed number - it can be changed based on the guidance of the council. Councilor Phillips asked why the fire chief is in the naming committee. Why not the police chief? Assistant City Manager, Dena Libner, answered that it is to ensure emergency responders are not confused by duplicate names or similar to other existing names. Councilor Phillips noted that the City manager can designate two people to the committee. Phillips asked why the JDEI Director would not be on the naming committee, especially since we want to focus on equity in the naming policy? Also, Councilor Phillips asked why they would not put community members on the actual committee. Was it because there would be a lot of community engagement done? Corporate counsel, Rachel Millette, answered the first question that in most cases the City Manager would select the JDEI Director and the appropriate Assistant City Manager that oversees the department responsible for the city asset. Those responsibilities and job descriptions can all change (in the event the job titles changed) so they would not have to update the ordinance in the event of that. Assistant City Manager, Dena Libner, answered that this is more of an administrative process. THe real substantive community engagement is expected to happen at S&T. In the event of a renaming there would be very active solicitation of community ideas and make the process as accessible as possible. Councilor Ali asked, is there a process of appealing? Corporate counsel, Rachel Millette, answered there is no appeal process and that the naming committee would move forward 3 names to the Sustainability & Transportation Committee, which they would then move forward 1 name to the City Council. The City Council could choose to pick a different name or go back to a different option or a brand new name at that time. Councilor Ali asked, does there always need to be 3 names provided? Corporate counsel, Rachel Millette, answered that once the naming committee has convened there will be a solicitation to the public for additional names for that street as well. The naming committee will review any names received and may recommend up to 3. They may choose to only put forward one recommended name to the S&T committee. Councilor Phillips thinks a thousand names is too many to require and noted that to be on the council they only need 75 names on the petition. Councilor Phillips would like to leave it five hundred names. Dena Libner said the staff perspective is not married to the thousand number and wants to defer to what the committee recommends. Councilor Ali asked how often do people bring something to be named? Do we have any data if it is other councilors or community members? If it was as high as one every month, he would want to keep it at a thousand. Dena Libner says if the majority of the committee recommends reducing it to 500, they can amend the ordinance before it goes to City Council. She agrees with Councilor Ali that it does not happen that often. Councilor Phillips asked if the naming committee will be managed and staffed by the Sustainability Office? Who is presenting the naming committee’s work to the S&T committee? Dena Libner answered that the chair of the naming committee would present it to the S&T committee. Motion to approve adopting a naming policy for public facilities The motion was moved by Councilor Ali and seconded by Councilor Phillips. The motion was accepted unanimously and will move forward to full City Council. Update on Vision Zero Presented by Assistant City Manager, Greg Jordan Assistant City Manager, Geg Jordan provided a quick update on the Vision Zero progress. They developed the Vision Zero Quick Action Plan and will have a more substantive update in the October/November meeting as they are still in quarter 1. The council approved and revised the City’s Complete Streets policy last month. Planning staff are now thinking about the process for redesigning the technical manual and have made progress on the Comprehensive Transportation Plan (scope of work for consultant assistance completed). Councilor Comments on Vision Zero Update No comments made. Snow ban parking policy Presented by Greg Jordan, Tony Wirkus, and Mike Murray Assistant City Manager, Greg Jordan, noted that if that council has an interest in moving the snow ban parking policy forward that would mean an ordinance change and it would be revisited again in October for public comment and action before moving it to council. Parking Director, Tony Wirkus, presented on the staff proposal to increase the fine for failing to move a vehicle during a winter storm parking ban. The goal of the change is to increase compliance and improve the speed and efficiency of snow removal from city streets. Wirkus clarified that the city operated impound lot at Ocean Gateway will not be available due to construction of the Portland Harbor Common Park, which means that the way this has been handled in the past is not an option with the main lot no longer available. Wirkus noted that there is currently a lack of compliance due to the small fine and limited towing. If a vehicle is in violation of the emergency parking ban and is towed, the total cost to reclaim the vehicle within 24 hours is $210. If a vehicle is in violation of the ban and not towed, but the owner is cited, the fee is $40. Currently, there is a significant lack of compliance with the parking ban due to low fines and the relatively small degree of towing. There is not enough time and resources to equitably enforce the ban as it’s not possible to tow every vehicle. The disparity of enforcement due to these limiting factors impedes the ability of the Public Works Department to clear the roads and makes the city less accessible to first responders and residents. In order to gain additional compliance, staff propose to increase the citation fee from $40 to $175. If a vehicle is towed to a private operator's lot during snow ban hours, the citation fee will be reduced by $135, which would result in a more equitable penalty for lack of compliance with the existing ordinance. Wirkus noted this proposed change is not about generating revenue it is about compliance and to improve accessibility across the entire city. In addition to increasing the citation, staff propose adding an approved snow ban parking locations in the areas below: ● Baxter Blvd - Coveside between Preble St. Ext. and Bates St ● Eastern Promenade - Extend closer to Major Charles Loring Memorial Park ● St. James - Odd side next to park ● Douglass St. - Odd side next to park ● Rainbow Mall Road - Next to the woods Subject to City Council approval of the parking fine amount, staff will develop a communication plan to educate residents and visitors about the change through existing digital assets, fliers, and other means identified at a future date. At this stage, this item is for information and discussion. Subject to committee input, staff recommends placing this item on the Committee’s October agenda for public comment and action by the Committee to recommend approval of the parking fine increase by the City Council. Director of Public Works, Mike Murray, shared that in the past, during the average snowstorm with the snow ban that the tow operators are averaging around 100 cars getting towed and about 400-500 cars that do not get towed and receive the $40 fine. This proposal will encourage moving your car to a snow ban lot and actually clear the roads of cars, which makes it very tight for the equipment to go through and can require them to return and post the streets. The current program is only capturing a fraction of the cars being left out on the streets. Assistant City Manager, Greg Jordan, emphasized the main focus of this is for citywide accessibility and getting the snow cleared in an effective, timely manner. He understands the fine is a large increase, but it is not to increase revenue. It is to increase accessibility and safety of clearing snow from the streets. Councilor comments Snow ban parking policy Councilor Ali worked to increase the towing fee less than five years ago. He asked, is this increase just for snow ban? Wirkus answered it does not impact the fee paid to tow operators. This is a citation from the City. Councilor Ali asked if residents can prove that their car broke down due to cold weather and cannot be moved would they still pay the fine? Wirkus answered that it would follow the normal appeal process and the resident can start by appealing it to the staff and explain the circumstances and provide photo documentation. It could also be escalated to a court summons if needed. Councilor Pelletier said that this is a great idea and wants staff to continue to pursue this. Councilor Michniewicz thanked staff for working on this and said this ties into the work we are doing for Vision Zero in keeping the city streets safe and accessible. Councilor Phillips noted that many people are not in compliance due to there being no available parking spaces. This is 100% about education and find a spot and figure out how to get home. To incentivise someone by increasing fees seems like an oxymoron. However, she does understand that there is a need to clear the streets of cars. Councilor Phillips asked how many additional spots that would provide if they open it up to more snow ban lots? Tony Wirkus does not know the exact number of spaces, but noted a mile and half of Baxter Boulevard would be opening up. Councilor Pelletier shared it is important to emphasize this would make it easier to find a parking spot during a snow ban. The committee is open to hearing about this again in October, especially learning more about the communications plan and concrete info about the additional spaces that will be made available and proceed from there. Approval of funds for Jetport parking expansion Presented by Jetport Director, Paul Bradbury Jetport Director, Paul Bradbury, reviewed the proposed Portland International Jetport Surface Parking Project and considered the referral to the City Council with a request to appropriate $9.3 million from the Jetport’s unrestricted fund balance. The proposed surface parking project provides for the redevelopment and upgrade of two existing parking lots, a gravel 300 space valet parking lot that was acquired from Toye Airport Park LLC in 2021 and the existing 102 space cell phone lot. These existing redeveloped parking lots are combined with the development of approximately 4.5 acres of land south of Jetport Boulevard and west of the Embassy Suites hotel as outlined on the following page. Bradbury noted that the gravel lot has no stormwater management and is hard to manage. The proposed facility reduces sprawl overall because it reduces off site parking with shuttles. This is only proposing to redevelop areas that are already for parking and impervious surfaces. The project would bring the existing gravel Park’nJet lot up to current site plan standards for stormwater, lighting, and access and it is adjacent to existing long term parking and within the existing developed campus of the Jetport. Onsite wetlands are isolated with no surface water connectivity to other parcels and do not contain essential functions or values. The proposed project would have a large underground stormwater infrastructure to treat the first 24 hour rainfall event before being discharged which cannot happen currently in today’s existing condition. The second project also to be discussed is the proposed preservation north of Jetport Boulevard: 59,322 square feet of area into conservation, of which 11,245 square feet is wetland. This exceeds the amount required as a condition of approval under the Planning Board Site Plan Permit. Bradbury also notes that this project was proposed to be done as an intermediate term improvement for parking according to the Master Plan of 2008 and the Master Plan of 2018. He also notes that the Jetport will protect the wetland areas north of Jetport Boulevard. The gravel lot is crucial to allow for the next phase of developing a parking garage. Public Comment on Portland International Jetport Infrastructure Improvement Project Updates Public Comments focused on the following: commenters stated that the presentation brought up additional questions about data demonstrating this is needed. Commenters noted the plan irreversibly destroys wetlands, will make it harder to meet climate goals, and reinforces reliance on automobiles. One commenter noted that current parking rates are inexpensive, potentially encouraging people to drive instead of get a ride from a friend, taxi, or public transportation, and that the rates are cheaper than Manchester Airport parking. Several commenters noted that the Unum office complex has large amounts of unused parking spaces could be used with shuttles, as well as the mall. Commenters noted that the 2018 Sustainable Airport Master Plan on Jetport website recommends two-phase expansion of the parking garage, solving long-term and short-term parking issues. Noted the Master Plan does not recommend more surface parking or clearing acres of woods and wetlands. Commenter stated that the Planning Board approved violation of master plan, but they were given documents which said the proposal was in line with Master Plan. Commenter stated that they were a proponent of a garage, particularly to preserve wetlands. Director Bradbury made one comment in response, noting that the Manchester Airport daily rate is lower than Portland’s at $14 per day, whereas Portland’s daily maximum is $15. It is important for people from other parts of the state to have an affordable option. The idea is not to keep people away from the national air transportation system, but to be consistent with regional prices, because there is not transit to all of the places people come from to use the airport. Councilor Comments on Portland International Jetport Infrastructure Improvement Project Updates Councilor Michniewicz asks why expand surface lots over building out a garage. The general goal in Portland is to get away from surface lots. Director Bradbury responded that this has been in master planning since 2008 because those areas were already impacted. The vast majority of the areas were impacted because of ParkNJet operations, including tree clearing. It is very important to fix the kind of problematic development that was a private operator, including lighting and stormwater issues. This plan does then grab an additional 2.1 acres that were in the 2008 Master Plan. These acres were in the airport business zone. This is a land-constrained airport. In order to do the next phase of expansion, it will be built on top of existing parking. Expectation is that all of the area up to Jetport Boulevard. We don’t know what will happen with parking demand in the future. A parking garage cannot be reused. Surface parking lot can be returned to its natural state much easier than a surface parking lot. Councilor Michniewicz asked what is the advantage if they are land constrained to expand rather than just increase density with a garage? Director Bradbury responded that they have 769 acres at PWM. An airport their size in the west has 20,000 acres. They really need the density all the way to airport boulevard that is currently airport business. He emphasized the versatility of the surface parking lot and its ability to serve different functions depending on the day and need. Regardless, that land will need to be developed and is needed for dense airport development that we are talking about in a small airport in the Northeast. And that will preserve land north of Jetport Boulevard. We are doing this project here, but then proposing to preserve wetlands in perpetuity north of Jetport Blvd and along the buffer zone. Councilor Michniewicz asked What kind of things go in a dense airport zone? Director Bradbury responded that it is airport terminals, rental cars, hotels, etc. Councilor Pelletier asks how integral the 2.1 acre lot is to the rest of this proposal. Can it be separated? Dir. Bradbury responds that they did separate a portion. The challenge is the subsurface stormwater treatment. Installing the subsurface stormwater is integral to the plan. Councilor Pelletier comments that he is okay with shuttles at airports. He thinks this will be a surface-level parking lot for a very long time. Does not see the need for it when we can just do shuttles, this is sprawl. Councilor Phillips: There has been a lot of community engagement about this plan. Has four things for the director to comment on: Is this an option if we get too far into the weeds, is there an option to postpone to October, or does it need to be approved ASAP? Better today, but if more information is needed, can do it in October. Councilor Phillips identifies five issues and asks for explanation: There seems to be a huge discrepancy between Director Bradbury and the neighbors about the 2018 plan. Folks are saying we need to go by the 2018 plan. Secondly, there are all of these questions about shuttles and shuttling people in, the relationship with UNUM, and the unused parking lots. Thirdly, the wetlands seem to be the concerns with the neighbors. The fourth thing is the garage. The fifth thing is the overall noise and cutting down trees. If we decide to take a vote tonight, we are just bringing it to the council. Information can change, there can be amendments, and a lot of things can change from the time it leaves this committee to the time it goes to the council. Director Bradbury responds that he understands and recognizes the confusion on the master plan. Yes, the 2018 sheet has been on the website since 2018, and so has 2008. He thinks the confusion is that they are contradictory to a certain extent. One shows the land acquisition, which allows for the full lot to be built. In the development plan, the first step is to acquire the property, and we weren’t showing the full development, because we had not acquired the plan yet. The concern with the garage first is that to do the next phase of the garage, we have to take over 300-400 current spaces. The Greater Portland Metro has increased service. We serve over one million people in the state of Maine, and there is not public transit to the entire state. Our peak parking is not right now, but February, March, April, when people are leaving the state. That is the challenge. There aren’t shuttles and taxis to cover the entire state. When they come for their once-a-year trip, we are over capacity. We have rented space from the UNUM parking in the past, but it is no longer available as they develop. All of the leasing is very short-term, including the mall, and we cannot rely on them long-term. When people use shuttles, they still drop off in front, which causes further traffic in front of the curb. Even though we are counting all of these as impacted wetlands, these are pocketed, isolated, and low-value. The wetlands we are preserving are higher value. This lot will be below the elevation of Jetport Boulevard, creating a natural berm and noise attenuator. We are willing to work to add more trees and more buffer in the non-wet areas. The garage is a big project, as opposed to this one, that fixes a lot of problems in the current site, including stormwater drainage and electrification. The first phase will be over 1,000 cars, over $40 million dollars immediately. In regards to reuse of the garage, the challenge with the garage is that it is only built to be stressed to 40 pounds per square foot, whereas buildings are built to be stressed to 100-lbs per square foot. This lot will serve beyond the five-year range. Discussed projections from the FAA for peak traffic at the airport. The trees that are on there are not old-growth. Director Bradbury discussed the age and diameter of the trees. He emphasized the proposed project is looking to allow development and density south of Jetport Boulevard and preserve trees north of Jetport Boulevard. Councilor Ali states that if this moves forward to the full council, we are going to receive the same comment from the residents. His understanding is that we cannot even stop this from moving forward. Councilor Ali asked corporation council if this was correct. Mr. Michael Goldman responded that this has been approved by the Planning Board. Preliminary injunction denied. The project is relying on the funding from the council. Councilor Ali clarified that if the vote of the committee is to not send it forward, it still goes to the council, but with that negative comment from the committee. Councilor Ali noted that they are going to receive the same emails and memos from the community and asks if it is possible for Director Bradbury to respond to those with a memo before it gets to the council. Yes, can respond to questions or post FAQ to website. There is an item before the superior court on the planning board approval of the project. I’d appreciate the opportunity to review some of the items. Would welcome the feedback to modify some aspects of the plan to make it more accommodating. Motion to send Portland International Jetport Infrastructure Improvement Project to full council with a memo that responds to all of the public comments received regarding this project. The motion was moved by Councilor Ali and seconded by Councilor Phillips. The motion was accepted unanimously and will move forward to full City Council. Workshop and Panel Discussion Regarding Environmental Regulation of Cruise Ships in Port Panelists: Ethan Hipple (City of Portland, Director of Parks, Recreation, and Facilities), Stacy Knapp (Maine DEP Air Bureau), Pamela Parker (Maine DEP), Ivy Frignoca (Friends of Casco Bay), Donnie Brown (CLIA) Councilor Philips turns meeting over to Director Troy Moon. Director Moon introduces panel and passes speaking over to Director Hipple. Director Hipple explains role of city related to cruise ships. Described the tariff, which are rules and rates for use of piers. Stacy Knapp, Maine Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) states that Maine DEP does not have regulatory authority over cruise ships and other marine vessels; EPA and US Coast Guard can enforce these. Maine DEP does not regulate odors; these are handled by city. DEP receives many questions and concerns about cruise ships and would like to better understand possible local impacts to ambient air quality from cruise ship activities. Maine DEP does not have relevant data of what pollutants are impacting ambient air quality and at what levels in areas impacted by cruise ships. Discussed Maine DEP Air Emissions from Marine Vessels released in January 2020, which is statewide data. Maine DEP is very interested in how ambient air quality is affected. Discussed sensors purchased with Inflation Reduction Act funding, QUANTAQ MODULAIR units looking at Particulate Matter (PM) 2.5, PM 10, Nitrous Oxides (NOx), and Carbon Monoxide (CO). These instruments are not federal methods and do not meet federal performance requirements. Five will be deployed in Portland for the 2025 cruise ship season and in Bar Harbor for 2026 season. Showed and discussed draft plan for where they plan to deploy the sensors. Pamela Parker, Head of Water Quality Enforcement for Maine DEP stated that Maine DEP does not have an active vessel monitoring program for cruise ships. Clarified difference between statutes and regulations. Vessels are regulated at the federal level, not the state level, divided by recreational, commercial, and military. Recreational and fishing vessels are largely excluded from regulation. Discussed which direct and incidental discharges are regulated by federal law, state law, and international law, and which laws and judicial rulings regulate them. Vessel Incidental Discharge Act (VIDA) largely preempts local and state laws regarding incidental discharges. Discussed incidental vessel discharges covered by federal regulations and statutes.VIDA promulgated performance standards. Many states have their own ballast water regulations. The Coast Guard is required to develop compliance and enforcement regulations. Maine has monthly meetings with them as they develop these regulations. The State of Maine is largely preempted from regulating and incidental discharges from ships. Offered hyperlinks of resources on VIDA. Ivy Frignoca, Casco Baykeeper, Friends of Casco Bay (FCB). FCB collects data and compares it with data collected by others. Data collected by FCB is using processes approved by federal regulatory processes. Until VIDA is fully implemented, the 2013 Vessel General Permit is still in effect. Described the four parameters which must be monitored and their limits. Described role of Coast Guard and current monitoring. Presented data collected by FCB of average seasonal total nitrogen, pH, and water column turbidity in Portland Harbor. FCB does not collect data related to PAHs and do not have the equipment to do so. Discussed what monitoring requirements will and will not be required of cruise ships in 2026 under VIDA. Donald Brown, Senior Vice President of Maritime Policy, Cruise Lines International Association (CLIA), discussed regulations governing cruise ships, industry environmental policies, net-zero goals including onshore power, and Exhaust Gas Cleaning Systems (ECGS), also called scrubbers. Councilor Comments and Questions for Panelists on Environmental Regulations of Cruise Ships in Port Councilor Ali asked Mr. Brown if he would be willing to enter into an MOU to not discharge scrubber wash water into the bay. Mr. Brown stated that the scrubbers were within the limits of regulations and that more data was needed. Councilor Ali asked Ms. Knapp was caused the 86% reduction in sulfur oxide she noted in the data. Ms. Knapp responded that this was based on NEI data which includes all types of ships, not just cruise ships, and is likely due to IMO regulations requiring lower sulfur contents in fuels. Mr. Brown also responded and discussed sulfur regulations in North America. Councilor Ali asked Mr. Brown if the cruise ships would pay $160 million as a contribution toward onshore power. Mr. Brown stated that he could not speak for any individual cruise ship lines, that each port would need to be evaluated, and that ships he represents have made significant investments in their ships to be able to use portside electricity. Councilor Pelletier asked if Mr. Brown if CLIA offers any grants towards developing portside power in Portland. Mr. Brown responded that CLIA is not currently set up as a granting institution. Councilor Pelletier asked if Portland were to provide CLIA with an MOU asking them to burn clean fuel while in port, would it preclude them doing business in Portland? Mr. Brown stated that CLIA does not take part in the decisions with where and when individual cruise ships call. Councilor Pelletier asked Director Hipple about a cruise ship which this past spring switched to burning clean fuel and the process. Director Hipple stated that in the case of the Meraviglia, which was in port for a few days for repairs this spring, some community members mentioned submitted concerns regarding black air coming from stacks. Parks, Recreation, and Facilities staff members spoke with the captain who, as a courtesy, temporarily switched to clean-burning fuel. Councilor Pelletier noted the number of countries who have banned scrubbers, and then asked a question to Ms. Knapp regarding Maine DEP air monitoring as opposed to shore-power emissions technology, which, to his understanding, will be done by the DOT. Ms. Knapp stated that she could detail what Maine DEP is doing, but was not familiar with what DOT was doing. She stated that measuring ambient air quality is different from measuring emissions. Measuring emissions would involve measuring at the stack, whereas DEP is measuring where people are. Ms. Knapp and Councilor Pelletier further discussed emissions versus ambient air quality measurements. Baykeeper Frignoca further elaborated that FCB measurements show cumulative pollution in the harbor from many different sources, but do not show impact of those pollutants on the harbor. Councilor Michniewicz asked if it would be feasible to collect the data Baykeeper Frignoca mentioned. Baykeeper Frignoca mentioned that it is important to determine the load of each pollution source. Ms. Parker further discussed data collection, modeling, and discharge from all other boats in the harbor. Mr. Brown stated that CLIA had been involved in some data collection and methods of data collection used. Mr. Brown stated that it is important to do a risk and impact model prior to imposing limits, so as to not stifle innovation. Councilor Michniewicz asked Mr. Brown to clarify what risks he was mentioning and who the risks affect. Mr. Brown stated that the risks he mentioned were to the specific waters and bounds of the locality. Councilor Michniewicz asked if there is any environmental damage to banning scrubber wash. Mr. Brown stated that it would disincentivize alternative technologies. Councilor Michniewicz asked Ms. Parker what would be left to the city to regulate, given all of the regulations in place. Ms. Parker stated that states and civil divisions under them, such as cities, cannot regulate scrubber wash under VIDA, but that there might be creative and backdoor ways to do so. She stated that she did not know how that would be done, but did know that the state cannot institute a ban on the technology and discharge. Councilor Pelletier stated that pursuing a memorandum of understanding would be the best way to work with the industry, weighing that it is a discretionary activity that also has a big impact on the economy. Motion to Adjourn The motion was moved by Councilor Ali and seconded by Councilor Phillips. The motion was approved 2-0. Meeting Adjourned.