City Council Mobility & Infrastructure Committee · Tuesday, October 14, 2025 · City Council Digest

3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

City Council Mobility & Infrastructure Committee Regular Meeting, September 16

packet pp.5–6

Topics: Transportation

Open packet at p.5 ↗

Staff report:

and possible action.

4. AGENDA ITEMS

Intelligent Transportation System Plan Update COM 0167

30 min · John Mortenson, Transportation Engineering Manager · packet pp.7–30

Topics: Transportation

Previously discussed: City Council Regular Meeting · Nov 6, 2023

Open packet at p.7 ↗

Staff report:

Information: The Issaquah City Council approved the City’s Intelligent Transportation Systems Plan at their Regular City Council meeting on November 6, 2023 (AB 8551). The ITS Plan’s Mission Statement states, “The ITS Program and Plan seek to improve the safety, health, security, and movement of goods, people, and services for all modes of the transportation network by using advanced technologies, establishing agency coordination, maximizing existing system capacity and infrastructure, and providing real-time traveler information.” There are six goals within the ITS Plan. They are: Goal 1: Improve the safety of the transportation system. Goal 2: Improve the efficiency and sustainability of the transportation system. Goal 3: Provide traveler information to help inform route and mode choice. Goal 4: Plan and deploy cost efficient and effective ITS technology. Goal 5: Integrate City ITS…

Sustainable Building and Infrastructure Policy Update COM 0181

45 min · David Reedy, Sustainability Coordinator · packet pp.31–173

Topics: Climate

Open packet at p.31 ↗

Staff report:

Page 31 of 173 AGENDA ITEMS b)

2017 segments .txt ↗

0:01 ↗ Uh, welcome everyone. Uh, I, Council

0:04 ↗ Member D. Michelle, call the 20 October

0:07 ↗ 14th, 2025 city council mobility and

0:10 ↗ infrastructure committee to order. Uh,

0:13 ↗ with me tonight is Council Member Ray

0:15 ↗ and Council Member Joe, who is the

0:17 ↗ actual uh, chair of this committee, is

0:20 ↗ unfortunately stuck in traffic and will

0:22 ↗ be here as soon as he possibly can. So,

0:25 ↗ we're going to start with public

0:27 ↗ comment. And there are multiple public

0:29 ↗ comment opportunities at tonight's

0:31 ↗ meeting, but let me check with the clerk

0:33 ↗ and see if there is um if there is

0:37 ↗ anyone

0:41 ↗ Let me check with the clerk again.

0:44 ↗ See if there is anyone uh who wants to

0:48 ↗ make public comment at the beginning of

0:49 ↗ the meeting.

0:54 ↗ No sher not at this time.

0:56 ↗ >> All right. Thank you. And no one in the

0:58 ↗ audience. Okay. Thank you. So I think

1:01 ↗ we'll wait until later opportunities for

1:04 ↗ public comment to read the uh procedures

1:08 ↗ for that. So we have two items tonight.

1:11 ↗ The first one is COM 0167 intelligent

1:15 ↗ transportation system plan update. Uh

1:18 ↗ and following that will be com 0181

1:20 ↗ sustainable building and infrastructure

1:22 ↗ policy update. So we'll start with the

1:24 ↗ first item and that is going to be

1:26 ↗ presented by John Mortonson,

1:29 ↗ transportation engineering manager uh

1:32 ↗ briefly after we uh adopt the minutes.

1:36 ↗ Sorry John.

1:39 ↗ So uh um Council Member Ray, do you have

1:43 ↗ any objections to approving the minutes?

1:46 ↗ All right. The minutes are approved

1:48 ↗ then. All right. Thank you. And go

1:50 ↗ ahead John.

1:53 ↗ >> Good evening, committee members. I'm

1:55 ↗ John Mortonson, transportation

1:56 ↗ engineering manager here tonight to give

1:59 ↗ you an update on the city's work

2:01 ↗ regarding its

2:03 ↗ and give me just a minute. I will share

2:06 ↗ my screen.

2:56 ↗ The purpose of tonight's item is to

2:58 ↗ update the mobility and infrastructure

3:00 ↗ committee about the progress that the

3:02 ↗ administration has made implementing the

3:04 ↗ intelligent transportation system or IT

3:08 ↗ plan and what the administration will be

3:10 ↗ doing Next regarding it.

3:23 ↗ The IT plan was approved by the city

3:26 ↗ council just over two years ago. And

3:28 ↗ within the IT plan is a mission to

3:31 ↗ improve safety, health, security, and

3:34 ↗ movement of goods, services, and people

3:37 ↗ for all modes of transportation of the

3:39 ↗ transportation network by using advanced

3:42 ↗ technologies, establishing agency

3:44 ↗ coordination, maximizing existing system

3:48 ↗ capacity and infrastructure,

3:50 ↗ and providing real-time traveler

3:52 ↗ information.

3:55 ↗ Within the IT plan are six goals to

3:58 ↗ support this mission. The first goal is

4:00 ↗ to improve safety. The next one is to

4:03 ↗ improve the efficiency and

4:05 ↗ sustainability of the system. Number

4:08 ↗ three is to provide traveler information

4:10 ↗ and help inform route and mode choice.

4:14 ↗ Number four is

4:16 ↗ plan and deploy cost efficient and

4:20 ↗ effective IT technology. The fifth one

4:24 ↗ is integrate city IT efforts with our

4:26 ↗ regional partners like the Washington

4:28 ↗ State Department of Transportation, King

4:31 ↗ County and the city of Seamish.

4:33 ↗ And the final one is to monitor

4:36 ↗ transportation improvement measures and

4:39 ↗ utilize this information to improve

4:41 ↗ safety and efficiency of the

4:44 ↗ transportation system.

4:47 ↗ As part of the IT plan, one of the work

4:51 ↗ items that was accomplished is to look

4:54 ↗ at the existing conditions and

4:56 ↗ limitations of the city's IT

4:58 ↗ infrastructure. And there are some

5:00 ↗ things that really stood out in the IT

5:03 ↗ report. And one of them is 50% of at the

5:08 ↗ time 50% of IT and signal control

5:12 ↗ devices had reached the end of their

5:14 ↗ life and did not meet city or industry

5:17 ↗ standards. The communication network

5:22 ↗ had speeds that were about 10% of what

5:26 ↗ is required to support the existing and

5:28 ↗ proposed devices. And it also lacked

5:30 ↗ redundancy. It was a system that really

5:32 ↗ grew organically over time. And those

5:37 ↗ field devices also lacked the ability to

5:39 ↗ generate performance measurement data to

5:42 ↗ a central system. And finally, current

5:45 ↗ staff were spending a lot of their time

5:49 ↗ and efforts being reactive and this

5:52 ↗ resulted in significant overtime costs

5:56 ↗ just to keep the system functioning.

6:01 ↗ And with all that information came up

6:03 ↗ with this flowchart that really shows

6:06 ↗ the system as in the performed status

6:11 ↗ where yeah it it worked but it took a

6:13 ↗ lot of work to keep it going and

6:17 ↗ functioning and wanting to move to a

6:19 ↗ managed system and ideally eventually an

6:22 ↗ optimized system for our traffic

6:24 ↗ signals.

6:27 ↗ to get there. The IT plan looked at

6:30 ↗ staffing, and I'm not going to go over

6:32 ↗ all the details, but the staffing that

6:34 ↗ the IT plan

6:37 ↗ recommended were positions to add as

6:40 ↗ part of the current 2025 to 26 budget

6:43 ↗ bienium. And of the recommended changes,

6:48 ↗ one has been made which was the

6:51 ↗ reclassification of a position to the

6:54 ↗ senior electrician and programmer

6:57 ↗ classification. That was done, but there

7:00 ↗ were

7:01 ↗ additional staff positions that were

7:03 ↗ recommended that were either

7:07 ↗ not kept as part of the city budget or

7:09 ↗ added. So a transportation systems

7:11 ↗ analyst, someone who would really work a

7:13 ↗ lot with the performance measurement

7:15 ↗ data, that position was never added. The

7:18 ↗ transportation program coordinator, it

7:20 ↗ was assumed that that position would be

7:23 ↗ converted to an FTE from a limited term

7:27 ↗ position and that did not happen. the

7:29 ↗ position expired at the end of 2024 and

7:33 ↗ that the city proposed a third traffic

7:36 ↗ signal technician to help with the

7:39 ↗ communications

7:41 ↗ network in the IT division and IT

7:46 ↗ network administrator. A half position

7:49 ↗ was recommended and that position was

7:51 ↗ not added to the city budget.

7:56 ↗ However, even with not having as much

7:58 ↗ staff as was proposed, the

8:00 ↗ administration is working diligently to

8:03 ↗ implement a lot of the IT plan, albeit a

8:07 ↗ little bit slower than originally

8:08 ↗ proposed. And so, I'm going to go over

8:10 ↗ the work that the different divisions

8:11 ↗ are working on. And I'm going to start

8:13 ↗ with transportation engineering, the

8:15 ↗ division that I manage. And when I hear

8:18 ↗ a lot of people talking about it,

8:19 ↗ especially council members, I really

8:22 ↗ hear them describing what are what is

8:25 ↗ adaptive signal control technology.

8:28 ↗ That's technology that allows the

8:31 ↗ traffic signals to adjust their signal

8:33 ↗ timing in real time based on current

8:36 ↗ conditions.

8:38 ↗ And to support that effort, the

8:39 ↗ administration is working on a

8:41 ↗ feasibility study. And someone might be

8:44 ↗ wondering okay

8:47 ↗ the city wants to move to this

8:49 ↗ technology. Why take the step to do a

8:51 ↗ feasibility study? Why not just go full

8:54 ↗ speed ahead? Well, adapted traffic

8:56 ↗ signals, it's a tool and to help with

9:01 ↗ improving flow and reducing delay to the

9:04 ↗ transportation network. But like any

9:06 ↗ tool, we need to make sure it's the

9:07 ↗ right tool because there are conditions

9:09 ↗ when adaptive traffic signals are not

9:12 ↗ the right solution. So for example, a

9:16 ↗ corridor that had that has very

9:18 ↗ predictable traffic patterns would not

9:21 ↗ be suitable for adaptive signals or a

9:25 ↗ corridor that's

9:27 ↗ really congested. It just has more cars

9:30 ↗ than it has capacity for. That wouldn't

9:33 ↗ be a good candidate. um they're not

9:35 ↗ always depending on the system, they're

9:37 ↗ not always the best for pedestrians. So,

9:38 ↗ that's something we're going to look at

9:40 ↗ as part of the feasibility study. And

9:43 ↗ we're also going to look at how it would

9:46 ↗ impact intra mobility. I heard last

9:50 ↗ night the council members really talked

9:52 ↗ a lot about the importance of

9:54 ↗ intraisiqua mobility and the importance

9:57 ↗ of that and making sure that we don't

10:00 ↗ just proceed with implementing a system

10:02 ↗ that would just favor

10:06 ↗ commuters passing through Isiqua. Um

10:09 ↗ >> so John can I ask a can I ask a 101

10:12 ↗ question? So, uh, you know, we talk

10:14 ↗ about intelligent,

10:16 ↗ uh, transportation systems and adaptive.

10:20 ↗ And so, while I was reading it, I was

10:21 ↗ thinking, are those the same thing or

10:23 ↗ are those two different things? And is

10:26 ↗ the adaptive the more progressive um,

10:29 ↗ technology? Um, I mean, are we building

10:32 ↗ on what was it and now it now we're

10:34 ↗ going to adaptive? Is that how it's

10:36 ↗ happening or wasn't quite sure if those

10:40 ↗ two things were the same or not? Um, a

10:42 ↗ good question, Deputy Council President

10:44 ↗ D. Michelle. I would say describe its as

10:49 ↗ the umbrella term that includes all the

10:52 ↗ work that we're doing to implement

10:55 ↗ technology with our transportation

10:57 ↗ system. And so it'll cover everything

11:01 ↗ that I'll talk about. The adaptive

11:03 ↗ signals that is one component underneath

11:06 ↗ the umbrella of its.

11:08 ↗ >> Okay. Good. Good. And we want to

11:10 ↗ acknowledge that council member Joe is

11:12 ↗ with us now and thank you. Glad that you

11:14 ↗ got here safely. So

11:16 ↗ >> good evening. Thank you deputy council

11:18 ↗ president.

11:23 ↗ >> All right.

11:24 ↗ >> Please go presentation.

11:25 ↗ >> Okay. So

11:28 ↗ we're going to do this feasibility study

11:30 ↗ to look at adaptive signal control

11:32 ↗ technologies and it'll it's broken out

11:35 ↗ into two phases. The first phase is a

11:37 ↗ highlevel screening with big data. And

11:39 ↗ when I say big data, what we're doing is

11:42 ↗ we're going to get a subscription to a

11:45 ↗ service that has data from connected

11:48 ↗ vehicles like

11:50 ↗ OnStar and also cell phone data and some

11:54 ↗ other data sources and do high level

11:57 ↗ level screening on

12:00 ↗ seven corridors. And then that

12:03 ↗ information will be presented to the

12:06 ↗ mobility and infrastructure committee in

12:08 ↗ 2026. And based on the recommendations

12:12 ↗ and the feedback from this committee

12:15 ↗ next year, then it'll different

12:17 ↗ corridors we'll move on to phase two

12:20 ↗ which is a much more detailed analysis

12:23 ↗ where we'll collect

12:25 ↗ traffic counts. will do a detailed

12:27 ↗ benefit cost analysis, which is a really

12:30 ↗ important step because if the city wants

12:32 ↗ to take a step and implement adaptive

12:36 ↗ traffic signal control and apply for a

12:39 ↗ grant, doing this detailed benefit cost

12:42 ↗ analysis, we'll do it using the methods

12:46 ↗ that the Federal Highway Administration

12:48 ↗ has. That way, it'll make the project

12:51 ↗ eligible for grant funding. And so that

12:54 ↗ study is phase two is scheduled for

12:57 ↗ 2027.

13:02 ↗ There's also a lot of other things that

13:04 ↗ the transportation engineering division

13:06 ↗ is working on related to its first or

13:09 ↗ the next one is a traffic camera policy

13:13 ↗ on this is an internal policy on how the

13:16 ↗ city will utilize our cameras and it was

13:19 ↗ started by the previous traffic signal

13:21 ↗ operations engineer.

13:24 ↗ That person had the position until June

13:26 ↗ when they decide to leave the city for

13:28 ↗ other employment and were in the process

13:30 ↗ of recruiting a new signal engineer. And

13:32 ↗ once that new signal engineer is on

13:34 ↗ board, I want that person to review this

13:36 ↗ policy and then distribute it to

13:38 ↗ different

13:40 ↗ divisions and departments throughout the

13:42 ↗ city to get feedback before it gets

13:43 ↗ finalized.

13:45 ↗ also is a traffic signal timing policy.

13:48 ↗ And this one's in progress, which when

13:51 ↗ Jillian came here to talk about the

13:53 ↗ transportation concurrency policy

13:55 ↗ project, she worked on two of the items

13:58 ↗ that are part of this policy, leading

14:00 ↗ pedestrian interval and transit signal

14:04 ↗ prioritization.

14:05 ↗ And based on the feedback that

14:08 ↗ the administration got, this item is

14:10 ↗ scheduled or these items are scheduled

14:12 ↗ to go to the council on November 10th

14:16 ↗ along with the as part of the mobility

14:19 ↗ action plan and the transportation

14:21 ↗ element of the comprehensive plan.

14:23 ↗ There's more work though that the

14:25 ↗ administration still needs to do for our

14:28 ↗ traffic signal timing policy. Once we

14:30 ↗ have a new traffic signal engineer on

14:33 ↗ board, one of the things they'll be

14:34 ↗ working on is developing a policy for

14:36 ↗ how frequent to update the timing plans.

14:41 ↗ And then there's also a work item to

14:43 ↗ have a highresolution data extraction

14:46 ↗ policy and that work is really

14:49 ↗ contingent upon adding the

14:51 ↗ transportation systems analyst.

14:55 ↗ The next project that we're working on

14:59 ↗ is a memorandum of understanding with

15:02 ↗ the Washington State Department of

15:03 ↗ Transportation

15:05 ↗ and that is pending hiring a new traffic

15:09 ↗ signal engineer. If all goes well, that

15:11 ↗ is something that is scheduled for 2026.

15:17 ↗ The next one is a traffic signal

15:21 ↗ performance measurement pilot that was

15:23 ↗ originally scheduled for next year 2026

15:27 ↗ and it's been delayed one year to 27.

15:31 ↗ Although this is also contingent upon

15:33 ↗ the transportation systems analyst

15:36 ↗ that's the position that would be doing

15:38 ↗ a lot of the work for this project. Now,

15:41 ↗ so far I've been telling you about

15:42 ↗ things that are taking a little longer

15:44 ↗ than anticipated.

15:46 ↗ There's an exception, video analytics.

15:48 ↗ And this is something that of all the

15:50 ↗ things under the umbrella of it, this is

15:52 ↗ the one I'm most excited for. And so

15:55 ↗ video analytics, this is where we use

15:58 ↗ cameras to record

16:01 ↗ signalized intersections and detect near

16:04 ↗ misses. And what I'm so excited for

16:07 ↗ about this technology is it really

16:09 ↗ allows us to implement counter measures

16:11 ↗ to make these locations safer before

16:14 ↗ someone actually gets hurt.

16:17 ↗ And for this work in 2024,

16:21 ↗ we did a pilot at the intersection of

16:23 ↗ East Lake Samish Parkway and Isqua Fall

16:25 ↗ City Road. This is one of the most if

16:28 ↗ maybe even the heaviest uh number of

16:32 ↗ collisions for an intersection in the

16:34 ↗ city. So we implemented there and we

16:36 ↗ really like the system and then we the

16:39 ↗ administration applied for a grant from

16:41 ↗ the Washington State Department of

16:42 ↗ Transportation and we were successful in

16:45 ↗ getting funding to expand this to 14

16:49 ↗ additional intersections. This work was

16:52 ↗ originally scheduled for 2027 with the

16:55 ↗ grant is now scheduled for 2026.

17:01 ↗ Going with the assumption that the

17:03 ↗ mobility action plan and the

17:06 ↗ transportation of the ele transportation

17:08 ↗ element of the comprehensive plan will

17:10 ↗ be passed as proposed without changes to

17:14 ↗ the recommendations for leading

17:16 ↗ pedestrian interval.

17:18 ↗ The administration will begin

17:20 ↗ implementing leading pedestrian interval

17:23 ↗ or LPI in 2026

17:28 ↗ and we'll be doing it on tier one

17:31 ↗ pedestrian corridors. So for those who

17:35 ↗ people who don't read the mobility

17:37 ↗ action plan and the transportation

17:39 ↗ element of the comprehensive plan as

17:41 ↗ part of their day jobs, our tier one

17:44 ↗ pedestrian corridors are the arterials

17:47 ↗ and collectors. Those are the busier

17:49 ↗ streets within the neighborhoods of

17:52 ↗ central Isiqua, Oldtown, and the Isqua

17:54 ↗ Highlands. So these are roads liies like

17:56 ↗ Seamish Parkway, Gilman,

18:00 ↗ Juniper, Dogwood, Park Drive, Highlands

18:04 ↗ Drive, bunch more, but um those streets

18:08 ↗ in those neighborhoods. And um however,

18:12 ↗ the first step in order to make sure

18:14 ↗ that we implement LPI correctly is to

18:17 ↗ make sure that all of the pedestrian

18:20 ↗ push buttons are upgraded to be

18:21 ↗ accessible.

18:23 ↗ Pedestrians with

18:27 ↗ um visual impairment disabilities

18:31 ↗ rely on

18:33 ↗ traffic heading parallel to the same

18:35 ↗ direction that they are going to know

18:38 ↗ when it's safe to cross the street. And

18:43 ↗ so when you have LPI, that's when the

18:46 ↗ pedestrian has a 3 or 4 second head

18:48 ↗ start. They don't have the noise of the

18:50 ↗ parallel traffic to tell them it's safe

18:52 ↗ to cross and then they would be waiting

18:54 ↗ for three or four seconds before they

18:56 ↗ would cross right as traffic starts to

18:58 ↗ move and that's not safe. The accessible

19:02 ↗ pedestrian push buttons, they will talk

19:04 ↗ to the pedestrians. If you go to a

19:07 ↗ pedestrian push button, ones that look

19:09 ↗ like you're in the picture on this slide

19:13 ↗ instead of the older looking ones, if

19:16 ↗ you push it and you hold it in for a few

19:18 ↗ seconds, it starts talking to you and

19:19 ↗ it'll tell you to wait to cross the

19:22 ↗ street and then eventually it'll tell

19:23 ↗ you walk sign is on and you'll know it's

19:26 ↗ safe to cross.

19:28 ↗ So, we'll get those make sure those are

19:31 ↗ upgraded before we implement the LPI and

19:34 ↗ then the new signal timing plans with

19:37 ↗ the

19:38 ↗ leading pedestrian interval

19:41 ↗ in the tier one corridors in those

19:44 ↗ neighborhood will begin retiming this

19:46 ↗ those signals.

19:50 ↗ The street operations division is also

19:52 ↗ doing a lot of work to implement the IT

19:55 ↗ plan, especially moving us from the

19:59 ↗ outdated devices to current technology

20:04 ↗ and happy to report that the traffic

20:06 ↗ signal controllers have been updated.

20:09 ↗ The controllers that is basically the

20:11 ↗ computer for the traffic signal and

20:13 ↗ we've got those upgraded. The cabinets

20:16 ↗ that enclose those computers or

20:18 ↗ controllers, those are in progress of

20:21 ↗ getting upgraded and it's on target to

20:24 ↗ be completed by 2029.

20:28 ↗ The city is also upgrading the

20:31 ↗ cameras that is in progress and expected

20:34 ↗ to be completed by the end of this year.

20:37 ↗ The dynamic message signs, the existing

20:40 ↗ ones are getting upgraded. The bid was

20:43 ↗ awarded last month for construction that

20:46 ↗ will happen in 2026.

20:48 ↗ And finally, the administration

20:52 ↗ continues the work of

20:55 ↗ upgrading and supplementing existing

20:57 ↗ detection. The city has been moving away

20:59 ↗ from using loops for a couple reasons.

21:01 ↗ One, the so I guess I should back up.

21:04 ↗ The loops, those are basically wire in

21:07 ↗ the ground in the pavement. And so when

21:09 ↗ a car drives over it, it changes the

21:12 ↗ current in the wiring and sends a

21:14 ↗ message to the traffic signal cabinet

21:17 ↗ that there's a car wanting to go through

21:19 ↗ the intersection. Well, what we've been

21:21 ↗ switching to is radar detectors. And

21:24 ↗ radar detectors, they're good for

21:27 ↗ bicyclists. They're good in foggy

21:30 ↗ weather as opposed to like video

21:33 ↗ detection. And um they don't damage the

21:36 ↗ pavement. So that helps

21:38 ↗ the city with its long-term maintenance

21:41 ↗ and that's in progress in this for an

21:44 ↗ annual project that we do. The

21:47 ↗ information technology division, they've

21:49 ↗ been working on the communications

21:51 ↗ network. They've got a number of

21:53 ↗ projects. The IT01

21:57 ↗ is basically

21:59 ↗ an inventory and map of the existing

22:01 ↗ network. See what we've got. And so that

22:05 ↗ is in progress. It's expected be to be

22:07 ↗ completed in the first quarter of 2027.

22:10 ↗ Once that's completed in the second

22:12 ↗ quarter of 27, the IT group is going to

22:16 ↗ work on designing the implementation

22:19 ↗ plan for how what the city needs to do

22:22 ↗ to upgrade the communications network

22:26 ↗ and then projects it through 7. And I

22:31 ↗ apologize there was an error in the

22:33 ↗ presentation that I had uploaded with

22:35 ↗ the agenda. It said

22:38 ↗ it listed IT06 twice didn't list it07

22:42 ↗ but those are the projects to build in

22:45 ↗ the redundancy and expand the the

22:48 ↗ communications network and those are

22:50 ↗ really pending completion of the design

22:53 ↗ of what needs to be done. And finally,

22:57 ↗ the IT group will be working on a

23:00 ↗ project to reestablish the wash dot

23:03 ↗ traffic buster connection. And that'll

23:06 ↗ be as part of when the fiber

23:11 ↗ is extended to the public works campus.

23:17 ↗ The timing and next steps, a lot of the

23:19 ↗ different projects, I did talk about the

23:21 ↗ timing on those. So I'm going to focus

23:22 ↗ on the next steps for the transportation

23:26 ↗ advisory board and the mobility and

23:28 ↗ infrastructure committee and those

23:29 ↗ really revolve around the adaptive

23:32 ↗ signal control feasibility study. And

23:35 ↗ next year the administration will be

23:37 ↗ going to the transportation advisory

23:39 ↗ board to establish the project

23:42 ↗ objectives and performance metrics. And

23:45 ↗ then those objectives and performance

23:47 ↗ metrics will be used along with the data

23:50 ↗ that to make recommendations that will

23:53 ↗ be presented to this committee for

23:56 ↗ review.

23:58 ↗ And that concludes my presentation.

24:00 ↗ Happy to take any questions.

24:04 ↗ >> Thank you. Um, anyone from the committee

24:07 ↗ have questions?

24:10 ↗ Council member Ray.

24:12 ↗ >> I always have questions.

24:15 ↗ Um so you talked about the adaptive

24:18 ↗ signal control technology which I think

24:21 ↗ is fascinating because that was um for

24:23 ↗ the last x number of years that I've

24:25 ↗ been talking about it this is exactly

24:27 ↗ what I'm looking for. Um what do you

24:31 ↗ hope to learn from the feasibility

24:32 ↗ study?

24:34 ↗ I hope to learn which corridors would be

24:37 ↗ great. It's something I really can I

24:41 ↗ hear and feel the community wants this

24:44 ↗ and I want to make sure that it's cost

24:46 ↗ effective and

24:49 ↗ will provide good direction. I I've

24:51 ↗ heard of some municipalities who have

24:53 ↗ gone full speed ahead with adaptive

24:55 ↗ signals without doing a feasibility

24:57 ↗ study and they've regretted it and

24:59 ↗ turned off their system. So, I want to

25:01 ↗ be able to make an informed decision to

25:03 ↗ find out where in the city this

25:06 ↗ technology will improve things and where

25:08 ↗ it will not and that way we can be good

25:10 ↗ stewards with the communities and the

25:12 ↗ taxpayers money.

25:13 ↗ >> Okay, cool. Um, you had mentioned

25:16 ↗ working with partners you list off King

25:19 ↗ County, WashDot and um, city of Seamish.

25:24 ↗ um what are they doing with the IT

25:27 ↗ and how far along in the process are

25:29 ↗ they are they they still in an

25:30 ↗ explorator exploratory phase or they

25:34 ↗ deployed stuff I'm just curious kind of

25:35 ↗ where are we at the beginning of the

25:37 ↗ pack or the end of the pack or

25:38 ↗ >> that is a a great question I do not know

25:40 ↗ the answer but I'd be happy to find out

25:42 ↗ and follow up with an email to the

25:43 ↗ committee

25:44 ↗ >> that would be awesome um

25:47 ↗ and then I I have a couple of staffing

25:49 ↗ questions um so are there. Um, so you

25:55 ↗ kind of went through the staffing stuff

25:56 ↗ pretty quickly. So are there what are

25:58 ↗ the positions that um um have been

26:02 ↗ funded slashapproved that are vacant and

26:04 ↗ where are they in the kind of

26:05 ↗ recruitment cycle?

26:06 ↗ >> Yeah, that would be the traffic signal

26:09 ↗ operations engineer and so just one.

26:13 ↗ >> Okay. And I guess I'll look to Emily to

26:15 ↗ make sure I'm not missing any.

26:18 ↗ Do we have both signal texts plus Eric?

26:22 ↗ Oh,

26:25 ↗ >> good evening. Emily Moon, public works

26:27 ↗ director. John's correct. There's only

26:29 ↗ one position that uh remained in the

26:32 ↗ budget and was fully funded for the

26:35 ↗ bienium and that position is vacant at

26:38 ↗ this moment. The other positions that

26:39 ↗ were called out in the plan uh did not

26:43 ↗ get included in the bianual budget and

26:47 ↗ so that's the status those.

26:49 ↗ >> Oh, go.

26:50 ↗ >> Yep. I think I'll want you for the next

26:51 ↗ one, too. Um, so could you just

26:53 ↗ summarize kind of what what positions

26:56 ↗ did we think we needed to move the it

26:59 ↗ forward that were not included in the

27:02 ↗ current budget?

27:11 ↗ >> Well, it's it's everything that's on

27:14 ↗ this page. So, but it's um

27:19 ↗ some positions are more important for

27:20 ↗ some projects than others.

27:22 ↗ >> Uh but since we have projects in uh

27:26 ↗ multiple divisions and each of these

27:29 ↗ positions would be supporting multiple

27:32 ↗ projects um that's why you had a

27:35 ↗ comprehensive package proposed. So as we

27:38 ↗ look at the first position

27:42 ↗ here uh that included the transportation

27:46 ↗ systems analyst that's really going to

27:48 ↗ be helpful for us as we try to monitor

27:52 ↗ the performance of our system and make

27:56 ↗ future recommendations and be able to

27:59 ↗ take the data and do something with it.

28:03 ↗ Um, so that in my mind that's

28:07 ↗ as we laid out that flowchart of moving

28:11 ↗ from sort of the reactive to the

28:13 ↗ optimized state that's getting more to

28:16 ↗ the uh that end point of optimizing our

28:20 ↗ system, but it's going to help us make

28:22 ↗ decisions along the way as well. Uh,

28:26 ↗ transportation program coordinator, I

28:28 ↗ think you've become aware of some of the

28:30 ↗ things that individual was tasked with.

28:32 ↗ um worked very heavily with our planning

28:35 ↗ >> uh group as well and uh regionally on uh

28:40 ↗ the programmatic aspect of our

28:42 ↗ transportation services and then the

28:45 ↗ signal technician that's at the

28:47 ↗ beginning of that continuum. Um we

28:51 ↗ continue to add infrastructure

28:54 ↗ and we will need additional support in

28:58 ↗ order to maintain what we have. We have

29:00 ↗ not slowed down on adding infrastructure

29:04 ↗ or on our plans to repair or replace.

29:07 ↗ John talked about the ped push buttons,

29:10 ↗ for example. We're going to need signal

29:13 ↗ text in order to perform uh some of

29:16 ↗ those projects. And then the network

29:18 ↗ administrator

29:19 ↗ halftime position is really critical for

29:22 ↗ us building out the network. So again,

29:24 ↗ that's kind of on the midpoint of that

29:26 ↗ continuum, but we can't do anything

29:28 ↗ beyond the midpoint without a little bit

29:31 ↗ more help in it because these projects

29:34 ↗ are so IT driven.

29:37 ↗ >> Yeah, makes sense. What's what's been

29:38 ↗ the barrier in filling the vacant

29:40 ↗ position? Are there any barriers?

29:42 ↗ >> I'll let Okay, thanks.

29:46 ↗ >> Someone described hiring a traffic

29:47 ↗ signal engineer like finding a unicorn.

29:51 ↗ So the barrier is

29:53 ↗ it's hard to do. There's just not a lot

29:56 ↗ of people who do it. It's very

29:59 ↗ specialized. My theory, and this is just

30:01 ↗ my theory. I I have no data behind it,

30:04 ↗ is that people who are drawn to that

30:07 ↗ type of work are also people who are

30:10 ↗ drawn to computer science and other tech

30:13 ↗ fields. and that the people who would be

30:17 ↗ traffic signal engineers

30:19 ↗ are working for Amazon or other

30:23 ↗ Microsoft doing that kind of work.

30:24 ↗ That's my speculation.

30:29 ↗ >> Oh, yes. Yes. Um this is also the the

30:32 ↗ second time we've

30:34 ↗ advertised it. We did a the first

30:37 ↗ recruitment this summer. We had a very

30:41 ↗ small number of applicants, interviewed

30:44 ↗ them. One of them backed out of the

30:46 ↗ process. Another one wasn't the right

30:49 ↗ fit at this time. Maybe in the future

30:52 ↗ that person might develop into an ideal

30:55 ↗ person for this position. And

30:58 ↗ so we're

31:01 ↗ screening applications right now and

31:05 ↗ going to be doing some interviews in

31:07 ↗ November.

31:08 ↗ >> Cool. Last question, I promise. Um,

31:12 ↗ if I look at all this, we're going to

31:14 ↗ have some things that fall under the IT

31:17 ↗ umbrella like the um

31:21 ↗ um accessible signal push button

31:25 ↗ thingies and possibly even uh reader

31:29 ↗ boards. Um, so that's cool. Um but if I

31:32 ↗ look at kind of the larger thing um

31:34 ↗ should we decide that adaptive signal uh

31:38 ↗ control technology would make sense for

31:40 ↗ us that's like 2027

31:44 ↗ 2028 kind of time frame best case

31:49 ↗ I'm just looking at the network timeline

31:51 ↗ you laid out and assuming we need the

31:53 ↗ network deployed before we can start

31:55 ↗ deploying the adaptive signaling.

31:57 ↗ >> Yeah.

32:00 ↗ Okay. So let let's talk through the

32:01 ↗ timeline. We would do the feasibility

32:03 ↗ study this year and next year for phase

32:06 ↗ one. Then phase two would be in 2027 and

32:08 ↗ then at that point the city would make

32:10 ↗ the the go no-go decision on the

32:13 ↗ individual corridors. And then it really

32:15 ↗ comes down to funding because and it

32:18 ↗ might depend on how much

32:22 ↗ is wanting to get upgraded because if

32:24 ↗ you're looking at external funding then

32:27 ↗ you're getting into a grant cycle and

32:30 ↗ you're even more years out. Or if the

32:32 ↗ city council were to say, "Hey, this is

32:35 ↗ great. We love it. It's our priority.

32:37 ↗ We're going to fund it ourselves. We're

32:39 ↗ not going to look to external funding

32:41 ↗ partners." Then you could the fastest I

32:44 ↗ would say you'd get to design in 28 and

32:48 ↗ I think it' take you into 29. So you'd

32:51 ↗ probably be installing it in 2030 under

32:54 ↗ the most ideal

32:56 ↗ fast-paced scenario.

32:58 ↗ >> Great. Thanks, John.

33:02 ↗ >> Other questions?

33:04 ↗ >> Council member Ray asked all the

33:06 ↗ questions that I had, so I will pass to

33:09 ↗ you.

33:11 ↗ Thank you. Um would like a little more

33:14 ↗ information on EN05A and ENO5B

33:18 ↗ uh alongside TR86,

33:20 ↗ the video analytics pilot. Um you you

33:25 ↗ indicated that you'll be monitoring and

33:28 ↗ and looking at the um traffic patterns

33:31 ↗ in these intersections and then trying

33:35 ↗ to

33:36 ↗ um make corrections so that we can stop

33:40 ↗ or curtail accidents. Can you um outline

33:45 ↗ some of the things that might be

33:46 ↗ solutions that would be looked at as we

33:50 ↗ uh examine those videos?

33:54 ↗ Yes. So, I'll talk a lot of hypothetical

33:58 ↗ because I I don't have the data with me.

34:01 ↗ But let's say for example that we're

34:04 ↗ seeing a lot of near messes between cars

34:08 ↗ that are turning right and pedestrians

34:10 ↗ in the crosswalk. Well, then possible

34:13 ↗ counter measures would be leading

34:15 ↗ pedestrian interval. And and so it might

34:17 ↗ be an example of even if we're not in a

34:20 ↗ tier one pedestrian corridor that we

34:22 ↗ would implement it if that's what we're

34:23 ↗ seeing. Of course, if we're in a tier

34:25 ↗ one, then we would uh it could also mean

34:28 ↗ no right on red kind of like what we did

34:30 ↗ at East Lakes Seamish Parkway and

34:33 ↗ Southeast 56. It could be that we're

34:35 ↗ seeing near misses with

34:38 ↗ cars turning left and cars coming the

34:42 ↗ same direction as them. And um so if we

34:46 ↗ see that maybe it's re-evaluating

34:49 ↗ should it have a flashing yellow if it

34:51 ↗ doesn't or should it not have a flashing

34:53 ↗ yellow if it does.

34:56 ↗ Those are just a few examples. There's a

34:58 ↗ lot more but off the top of my head

35:01 ↗ those are two I can think of. So would

35:03 ↗ it be fair to say that we're at least

35:06 ↗ going to be increasing

35:08 ↗ the safety for pedestrians in that

35:10 ↗ intersection and the drivers? We're

35:12 ↗ going to reduce uh calls for EMS or fire

35:16 ↗ by having that there and um potentially

35:21 ↗ uh increasing the flow of traffic

35:22 ↗ because we won't have as many accidents

35:25 ↗ there. Are those at least three of the

35:26 ↗ things that we could see from this

35:28 ↗ project?

35:29 ↗ >> Yes.

35:29 ↗ >> Are there others that I might have

35:30 ↗ missed?

35:34 ↗ >> Not knowing what they are. Yes.

35:36 ↗ >> Okay.

35:37 ↗ >> I'm sure there are.

35:38 ↗ >> I'm leaning on you as the expert. So

35:41 ↗ there are other things.

35:42 ↗ >> Yeah, I'll I'll go with one more. Um the

35:44 ↗ city would be less exposed to lawsuits

35:48 ↗ because if a pedestrian

35:51 ↗ or well any accident at our signals, but

35:53 ↗ especially when a pedestrian is struck

35:56 ↗ in a crosswalk, that can be a very big

35:59 ↗ liability to a public agency. So also

36:02 ↗ lower legal liability.

36:05 ↗ >> Okay. Thank you. I appreciate that

36:07 ↗ information. That was the only question

36:09 ↗ I had. if there are others that have

36:10 ↗ come up. Okay. Uh you outlined the the

36:13 ↗ next steps. Uh this will sounds like

36:16 ↗ it's going to go to to TAB and then back

36:19 ↗ to us later uh in the process. Is that

36:23 ↗ um what's the timeline for that in your

36:27 ↗ mind?

36:32 ↗ >> I'm I don't have it in front of me. So I

36:36 ↗ I will follow up with an email. I I want

36:38 ↗ to look at the schedule that the

36:40 ↗ consultant proposed for this project and

36:42 ↗ make sure I give you accurate

36:43 ↗ information.

36:44 ↗ >> Okay, that's fine. It says on there

36:47 ↗ 2026. I just wanted to get a better

36:50 ↗ picture if I could for our planning

36:51 ↗ purposes, but the administration does a

36:53 ↗ great job setting our calendar out. So,

36:55 ↗ thank you for all that information and

36:58 ↗ uh your presentation tonight. And if

37:00 ↗ there are no other questions, we'll move

37:02 ↗ on to public comments on that particular

37:04 ↗ topic. Is there anyone present in the

37:07 ↗ room that would like to give public

37:08 ↗ comment on this particular topic?

37:12 ↗ Seeing none in the room, um do we have

37:14 ↗ anyone online that might be wanting to

37:16 ↗ give public comment at this meeting

37:18 ↗ tonight?

37:19 ↗ >> Not at this time, Chair.

37:20 ↗ >> Okay. Um anyone that's watching, please

37:23 ↗ remember that you can always reach out

37:24 ↗ to us at councilisquawa.gov.

37:27 ↗ All the emails are read and answered

37:29 ↗ along the way and feel free to stop Barb

37:33 ↗ Michelle or council member Ray on the

37:34 ↗ street and engage them on these topics

37:36 ↗ whenever you feel free to do so. All

37:40 ↗ right, we'll move on to this the next

37:42 ↗ topic which is sustainable building and

37:44 ↗ infrastructure policy update. Thank you

37:46 ↗ John for the presentation tonight.

37:51 ↗ We should do some comments on this. All

37:53 ↗ right, sorry about that. Who wants to go

37:56 ↗ first?

37:58 ↗ I'll go first. Okay.

37:59 ↗ >> I'm really bummed. I mean, I'm really

38:01 ↗ really really really really bummed about

38:04 ↗ this because I think you all you all

38:06 ↗ know that this is something that I've

38:08 ↗ wanted for a long long time and I'm I'm

38:11 ↗ just seeing the timeline extend and

38:14 ↗ extend and extend and it's it's

38:15 ↗ disappointing. And I'm not um casting

38:18 ↗ aspersions or blaming anyone, but I just

38:21 ↗ want to to be kind of on the record of

38:23 ↗ saying I'm just really um fundamentally

38:26 ↗ disappointed because I think this is a

38:27 ↗ technology uh that can really move the

38:29 ↗ needle. And I'm I'm anxious to do what

38:32 ↗ we can do. And I'm anxious that we get

38:34 ↗ some some bang for our buck and the the

38:37 ↗ video thing is good and the in improved

38:41 ↗ uh accessibility on uh cross signals is

38:44 ↗ good and the potential for reader boards

38:46 ↗ is good. But where we really get the big

38:48 ↗ bang for our buck I really believe is in

38:50 ↗ the adaptive signaling. And so, um, you

38:53 ↗ know, anything we can do to move this

38:55 ↗ faster, um, would be, I think, in the

38:58 ↗ best interest of the city.

39:00 ↗ >> Council member Ray, there still is time

39:02 ↗ to mount a writing campaign if you'd

39:04 ↗ like to continue your your time on

39:06 ↗ council.

39:10 ↗ Um I'm I uh am bummed a little bit for a

39:14 ↗ little bit different reason. I think

39:16 ↗ following last night's discussion about

39:18 ↗ the midby uh budget and the challenges

39:22 ↗ that we're facing there. Um and this I

39:25 ↗ certainly agree with council member Ray.

39:27 ↗ This is a really great project. is one

39:30 ↗ that uh would

39:33 ↗ uh address many of the issues that came

39:35 ↗ out in our community survey as the top

39:38 ↗ issues. The flow of traffic, this is

39:40 ↗ exactly what we're looking for is this

39:42 ↗ this kind of creative solutions. Um and

39:47 ↗ to see the number of personnel that are

39:49 ↗ needed to carry it out under a daunting

39:52 ↗ budget environment is very very uh

39:55 ↗ challenging here. So, um I I do want to

39:58 ↗ say I was impressed. You're down three

40:01 ↗ and a half people and you're still

40:03 ↗ moving forward on many of the things and

40:05 ↗ I have to commend you for that and uh

40:08 ↗ say gosh, you're dedicated to this and I

40:12 ↗ really appreciate that and uh we'll see

40:15 ↗ what we can do budget-wise.

40:18 ↗ Thanks.

40:21 ↗ And I too will add my thanks that uh

40:23 ↗ you're doing great work with uh skeleton

40:27 ↗ staff as Halloween approaches. And uh

40:31 ↗ I'm on a roll tonight. Um, I would uh

40:34 ↗ also indicate that uh the video um work

40:40 ↗ that's going to be done I think is going

40:41 ↗ to as was pointed out reduce liability

40:45 ↗ for the city, increase public safety,

40:48 ↗ increase the strain on our um police and

40:50 ↗ fire, our paramedics, and also increase

40:52 ↗ the flow of traffic as deputy council

40:55 ↗ president D. Michelle has pointed out.

40:56 ↗ All good things that we're trying to

40:58 ↗ focus on as we go forward uh with this.

41:01 ↗ And then um the reader boards of course

41:04 ↗ are going to be important uh for public

41:07 ↗ safety in general, for traffic flow, but

41:09 ↗ also as we look toward um the World Cup

41:12 ↗ coming here in June, I could see it as

41:14 ↗ an asset uh for us to use to help those

41:17 ↗ that are visiting our region for the

41:19 ↗ first time understand our geography, our

41:22 ↗ constraints, and our road constraints a

41:24 ↗ little bit better as they try to make

41:26 ↗ their way to festivals and games and

41:29 ↗ other celebrations along the way. Um, I

41:32 ↗ also want to comment and give my

41:35 ↗ appreciation to uh staff for taking this

41:39 ↗ a little bit slow and wanting to do the

41:40 ↗ feasibility studies before

41:42 ↗ implementation. Uh, as was pointed out,

41:45 ↗ we've had uh some of our neighbors uh

41:48 ↗ start down the path um start measuring

41:51 ↗ the wrong thing or um it not turning out

41:54 ↗ the way they anticipated or thought it

41:56 ↗ would and having to turn it off. Um that

41:59 ↗ to me is uh a waste of staff resources

42:03 ↗ and capital along the way and we do need

42:06 ↗ to take the steps uh that are needed to

42:08 ↗ make sure that we are um measuring the

42:11 ↗ right thing right thing getting the

42:12 ↗ right results we want to see uh tweaking

42:15 ↗ it and adjusting it as we go. Um so I

42:17 ↗ really appreciate the measured way that

42:20 ↗ um staff is approaching uh this project

42:22 ↗ overall. That concludes my comments.

42:25 ↗ Anything else brought up for anyone

42:27 ↗ else? All right, thank you. Then we'll

42:29 ↗ move on to the next topic which is now

42:34 ↗ CM181,

42:36 ↗ sustainable building and infrastructure

42:38 ↗ policy update. Dave Reedi,

42:40 ↗ sustainability coordinator. Welcome.

42:41 ↗ Thank you for joining us tonight.

43:07 ↗ Thank you to the members of the

43:08 ↗ committee for having me here tonight to

43:10 ↗ to talk about our sustainable building

43:12 ↗ and infrastructure policy update.

43:15 ↗ So uh today my name is David Rei. I'm

43:18 ↗ the sustainability coordinator at the

43:20 ↗ city.

43:22 ↗ So today's topic um is to discuss the

43:25 ↗ proposed updates and changes to the

43:27 ↗ existing city of Isiqua sustainable

43:30 ↗ building and infrastructure policy. Um

43:33 ↗ this policy the expected impact is that

43:35 ↗ it would be uh allow for the

43:37 ↗ incorporation of sustainability

43:38 ↗ principles uh into uh a wide range of

43:42 ↗ city capital projects uh transportation

43:44 ↗ projects um building and facility

43:47 ↗ projects and others.

43:50 ↗ Um before really uh digging into to the

43:54 ↗ proposed updates um I'm going to cover a

43:57 ↗ couple slides on um some specific

44:00 ↗ questions for the committee um as well

44:02 ↗ as some staff recommendations on those

44:04 ↗ questions um before I then will we'll uh

44:08 ↗ dig deep into kind of the proposed

44:10 ↗ updates and what that means for uh for

44:12 ↗ the city.

44:15 ↗ So we have three specific direction

44:18 ↗ needed questions. The first of which is

44:21 ↗ uh should the city apply uh the envision

44:23 ↗ toolkit to pilot projects uh first to

44:26 ↗ better understand uh

44:29 ↗ >> yeah if I could just interrupt you just

44:30 ↗ for a minute.

44:31 ↗ >> Um could you frame and outline exactly

44:35 ↗ what sustainable building and

44:36 ↗ infrastructure policy is what it does so

44:38 ↗ that our audience has some context in

44:40 ↗ terms of what we're talking about in

44:42 ↗ advance and then they can follow along

44:44 ↗ in terms of the direction that might be

44:45 ↗ needed.

44:46 ↗ >> Absolutely.

44:46 ↗ >> Thank you. So, I I'm just going to jump

44:50 ↗ ahead real quick and we'll go back to to

44:52 ↗ those previous slides. But, so, um, the

44:55 ↗ city of Isiqua has an existing 2004, uh,

44:58 ↗ sustainable building and infrastructure

45:00 ↗ policy. And what that policy, uh, does

45:03 ↗ and what we're proposing today, um,

45:05 ↗ relates to incorporating sustainability

45:08 ↗ principles into both building projects

45:10 ↗ at the city as well as infrastructure

45:12 ↗ projects. And sustainability principles

45:15 ↗ cover a really wide range of uh topics.

45:19 ↗ And that means uh things like uh

45:22 ↗ managing energy use in projects,

45:24 ↗ managing and reducing water consumption.

45:27 ↗ Um thinking about where we're citing

45:30 ↗ projects, uh thinking about uh how

45:33 ↗ projects can uh actually improve air

45:36 ↗ quality or improve health outcomes in

45:38 ↗ buildings or uh because of the

45:41 ↗ infrastructure projects themselves.

45:44 ↗ We uh as I mentioned have an existing

45:46 ↗ policy from 2004 uh that is a little bit

45:50 ↗ out ofd at this point. Um and updating

45:54 ↗ the policy was identified both in the uh

45:57 ↗ sustainable building action strategy of

45:59 ↗ 2018 as well as the 2021 uh climate

46:03 ↗ action plan as a priority action.

46:06 ↗ um this uh policy and and why we're

46:09 ↗ focusing on it or or talking about it

46:11 ↗ today um recognizes a couple the the

46:14 ↗ impact of buildings and infrastructure

46:16 ↗ on our natural environment and our on

46:18 ↗ our greenhouse gas emissions. So

46:21 ↗ buildings um in the city the city

46:23 ↗ operation uh the buildings that the city

46:26 ↗ operates um represent the largest source

46:28 ↗ of greenhouse gas emissions um from

46:31 ↗ government operations about 48% in 2022.

46:35 ↗ And then uh both buildings and

46:37 ↗ infrastructure projects have uh as we

46:39 ↗ know major impacts on both the natural

46:42 ↗ system um and quality of life uh for our

46:45 ↗ residents and for our uh city staff.

46:50 ↗ So that's a little bit of a brief

46:52 ↗ background of the uh sustainable

46:54 ↗ building and infrastructure policy.

46:57 ↗ Um and I will also say the questions

47:01 ↗ will make more sense as we um as I dive

47:05 ↗ more into the the uh topic. Let's see

47:08 ↗ how I get back.

47:11 ↗ Um,

47:14 ↗ okay.

47:20 ↗ Here we go.

47:25 ↗ I'm sorry. I didn't mean to trip you up

47:27 ↗ there.

47:28 ↗ >> Oh, no problem. For uh didn't see the

47:30 ↗ background.

47:31 ↗ >> Thank you.

47:33 ↗ So the questions for uh the committee

47:36 ↗ are uh should the city apply the

47:38 ↗ envision toolkit which is used to

47:40 ↗ evaluate infrastructure p projects to

47:43 ↗ pilot projects first to better

47:45 ↗ understand impacts or should the policy

47:48 ↗ require the immediate use of the

47:50 ↗ envision toolkit for all infrastructure

47:52 ↗ projects.

47:54 ↗ The second uh question is should the

47:56 ↗ policy specify a certification level

47:59 ↗ required for every project that uses

48:01 ↗ Envision or should the city use the

48:04 ↗ pilot projects to provide more data

48:06 ↗ first?

48:07 ↗ And then does the mobility and

48:09 ↗ infrastructure committee have any other

48:11 ↗ feedback on the proposed updates to the

48:13 ↗ policy?

48:16 ↗ Uh the administration recommendation is

48:19 ↗ uh that we apply the envision toolkit to

48:22 ↗ pilot projects uh first to better

48:25 ↗ understand the impacts and benefits

48:27 ↗ before requiring all projects all

48:30 ↗ infrastructure projects at the city use

48:31 ↗ the toolkit.

48:33 ↗ Uh second uh we're recommending that we

48:36 ↗ do not specify a specific certification

48:38 ↗ level for every project that uses

48:40 ↗ Envision until more is learned through

48:42 ↗ the pilot process.

48:44 ↗ And then third, uh we are seeking uh

48:48 ↗ recommending seeking council adoption um

48:50 ↗ pending any changes uh requested from

48:52 ↗ this committee.

48:57 ↗ One other piece of detail um moving into

48:59 ↗ the current context and background for

49:01 ↗ this policy update um is that uh city

49:05 ↗ staff worked with Cascadia Consulting in

49:07 ↗ fall of 2024 and spring of 2025 uh to

49:11 ↗ develop recommendations on options for

49:13 ↗ updating the sustainable building and

49:15 ↗ infrastructure policy in Cascadia.

49:17 ↗ Consulting and coordination with staff

49:18 ↗ discussed uh uh potential options with

49:22 ↗ uh staff that would be implementing

49:24 ↗ infrastructure and facilities projects.

49:26 ↗ uh they conducted interviews with peer

49:28 ↗ jurisdictions, discussed with senior

49:30 ↗ leadership team and discussed with the

49:32 ↗ environmental board as well. And all of

49:34 ↗ that uh went into uh two major

49:37 ↗ recommendations

49:38 ↗ um from uh Cascadian Consulting that

49:41 ↗ informed then the proposed updates to

49:43 ↗ the policy.

49:47 ↗ So the first of those recommendations is

49:50 ↗ to pursue a phased approach to an

49:53 ↗ updated policy. a phased approach. This

49:56 ↗ recommendation recognizes uh that there

49:59 ↗ are staff uh capacity questions,

50:02 ↗ budgetary constraints and training that

50:04 ↗ are necessary for staff to have adequate

50:07 ↗ and fully implement an expanded

50:09 ↗ sustainable building and infrastructure

50:11 ↗ policy. Um a phased approach looks like

50:14 ↗ using pilot projects and phasing in

50:17 ↗ requirements for uh city facilities and

50:20 ↗ buildings as well as infrastructure

50:21 ↗ projects themselves and then also

50:23 ↗ incorporating regular evaluation to see

50:26 ↗ uh what is working what is not working

50:28 ↗ and making adjustments based on that.

50:32 ↗ The second major recommendation uh is to

50:34 ↗ build staff and project capacity for

50:36 ↗ implementation. Again, this recognizes

50:38 ↗ the need for uh building that staff

50:41 ↗ capacity, building staff expertise, uh

50:43 ↗ making sure staff are trained uh and and

50:46 ↗ able to implement um uh tools like

50:50 ↗ Envision and lead for our projects. Um

50:54 ↗ as well as making sure that there's

50:55 ↗ enough funding and and support for these

50:58 ↗ uh sustainability principles for u

51:01 ↗ infrastructure and building projects.

51:03 ↗ And part of these recommendations

51:05 ↗ recognize that uh most small cities like

51:07 ↗ Esqua uh do not have policies like this.

51:11 ↗ Um and many larger jurisdictions that do

51:14 ↗ have policies, sustainable building and

51:16 ↗ infrastructure policies um have

51:18 ↗ dedicated staff uh that get to support

51:21 ↗ these policies. And so by approaching it

51:24 ↗ with a phased approach and focusing on

51:26 ↗ building our uh staff capacity at the

51:29 ↗ outset um is intended to help um right

51:32 ↗ size a policy for uh for the city of

51:34 ↗ Isiqua.

51:38 ↗ All right. So in the packet for tonight

51:41 ↗ I believe there was both a redlinined

51:43 ↗ and a clean copy of the proposed changes

51:45 ↗ to the policy. And I did want to note

51:48 ↗ that um the update proposed today really

51:52 ↗ focuses on um an updated policy uh for

51:57 ↗ municipal operations with the goal of

51:59 ↗ addressing communitywide sustainable

52:01 ↗ building um through city codes such as

52:04 ↗ titles 18 and and 16.

52:08 ↗ And before I dig too deep into what the

52:10 ↗ proposed changes are, I do want to just

52:12 ↗ do a little level setting with uh

52:14 ↗ Envision and uh LEAD and make sure that

52:17 ↗ we're all on the same uh understanding

52:19 ↗ of of kind of what these tools that are

52:21 ↗ being proposed um do and and can help us

52:24 ↗ with. So LEAD is uh maybe the tool that

52:28 ↗ more folks are familiar with. It is

52:30 ↗ really a national and globally

52:32 ↗ recognized green building certification

52:34 ↗ and standard. And the idea is that it

52:36 ↗ helps um uh projects really incorporate

52:39 ↗ sustainability into all aspects of

52:42 ↗ building development and building

52:44 ↗ projects. Um and that can be um

52:47 ↗ redevelopment of existing projects um as

52:49 ↗ well as new buildings as well. Envision

52:53 ↗ is also a a globally recognized

52:56 ↗ nationally uh used tool and it's a

52:58 ↗ compre comprehensive tool developed um

53:02 ↗ by the institute for sustainable

53:04 ↗ infrastructure to help plan design and

53:06 ↗ deliver sustainable projects of all

53:09 ↗ types and sizes and envision is

53:12 ↗ specifically developed to help address

53:15 ↗ uh sustainability principles in projects

53:17 ↗ that lead and other building tools do

53:19 ↗ not address. So, Envision was designed

53:22 ↗ to help us incorporate sustainability

53:25 ↗ principles into road projects, into

53:27 ↗ parks projects, into water process and

53:30 ↗ infrastructure projects.

53:33 ↗ Envision has been around since about

53:35 ↗ 2011 and and lead has been around for uh

53:38 ↗ longer than that as well.

53:41 ↗ Um, and then the final item I want to

53:43 ↗ just mention with these two tools is

53:46 ↗ when we think about uh the impact of

53:48 ↗ this policy, again, it goes beyond just

53:51 ↗ reducing our greenhouse gas emissions,

53:53 ↗ but it also helps us think about

53:55 ↗ improving indoor air quality or or

53:57 ↗ outdoor air quality for our residents.

53:59 ↗ Thinking about how can we improve the

54:00 ↗ quality of life for our residents. How

54:02 ↗ can we use less resources, not just

54:05 ↗ energy, but also uh be efficient with

54:07 ↗ our water um and make sure that we're

54:10 ↗ using the sites that we're placing uh

54:12 ↗ infrastructure and buildings on uh to

54:15 ↗ the best of our ability.

54:17 ↗ And that makes it both um a much more

54:20 ↗ holistic look at these building and

54:22 ↗ infrastructure projects and it also does

54:24 ↗ add some complications into thinking

54:26 ↗ about how we evaluate the use of these

54:28 ↗ projects in the uh this policy in the

54:30 ↗ future.

54:33 ↗ So now digging into uh the actual

54:36 ↗ proposed policy changes. So the first is

54:40 ↗ to uh the policy propos the proposed

54:43 ↗ changes uh recommend formalizing

54:45 ↗ sustainability team support for the

54:47 ↗ implementation of this policy. So this

54:51 ↗ means uh leveraging the sustainability

54:54 ↗ team to support budget development for

54:56 ↗ other departments to assist with the

54:58 ↗ integration of sustainability principles

55:00 ↗ into facility and infrastructure

55:02 ↗ projects from the outset.

55:04 ↗ Uh second uh it tasks the sustainability

55:07 ↗ team to support uh the identification of

55:10 ↗ funding and support for staff training

55:12 ↗ um both for the sustainability team but

55:14 ↗ also for departments across the city to

55:17 ↗ make sure that um our staff at public

55:19 ↗ works and parks um and in administrative

55:22 ↗ services are trained on uh the best

55:25 ↗ available uh understanding and tools to

55:29 ↗ evaluate uh sustainability projects uh

55:32 ↗ for uh infrastructure. and buildings.

55:36 ↗ And then third, uh the policy uh updates

55:40 ↗ sets an evaluation process and timeline.

55:43 ↗ Um and incorporated into the policy are

55:46 ↗ uh evaluations both in 2028 and 2031.

55:49 ↗ And the goal here is to make sure that

55:51 ↗ we don't go another 20 years without

55:52 ↗ updating uh the sustainable building and

55:55 ↗ infrastructure policy as well as uh

55:58 ↗ leveraging um those evaluations to make

56:00 ↗ sure that we're adjusting the policy as

56:02 ↗ we go to um best meet the needs of our

56:06 ↗ uh projects and our community.

56:13 ↗ Next, the old policy had many gaps when

56:15 ↗ it came to what facilities were actually

56:17 ↗ covered and it was also out ofd with

56:20 ↗ current electric and city of Isiqua

56:22 ↗ building codes. So, proposed updates

56:25 ↗ here for uh addressing one gap. Um there

56:29 ↗ is specific language related to small

56:31 ↗ facilities which are under 5,000 square

56:33 ↗ feet that the the city um is either

56:36 ↗ building or um conducting some major

56:39 ↗ retrofits to. And for small facilities

56:42 ↗ uh the policy encourages the use of

56:45 ↗ sustainable principles in design and

56:47 ↗ implementation but does not require um

56:49 ↗ any new standards there. For medium-siz

56:52 ↗ facilities, those that are between 5,000

56:55 ↗ and 10,000 square feet, the policy uh

56:58 ↗ asks for aligning with lead platinum uh

57:02 ↗ standards um using internal

57:04 ↗ documentation with project staff but not

57:07 ↗ actually requiring certification with

57:09 ↗ lead platinum. And that is to allow for

57:11 ↗ additional flexibility for staff as well

57:13 ↗ as to reduce cost since um actually

57:16 ↗ getting these certifications do have uh

57:19 ↗ costs associated with them.

57:21 ↗ And then for large facility projects, um

57:25 ↗ the change is to align with

57:26 ↗ sustainability requirements included uh

57:29 ↗ in the land use code which is currently

57:31 ↗ set at lead platinum uh for new uh new

57:34 ↗ buildings and major retrofits. Um and it

57:37 ↗ does require certification and so um

57:40 ↗ updating the policy in this way uh uh

57:43 ↗ aligns the sustainable building and

57:45 ↗ infrastructure policy with existing um

57:48 ↗ requirements set out in title 18.

57:51 ↗ And then I do want to note that um as uh

57:54 ↗ council has heard in the past there are

57:56 ↗ many discussions around the future of

57:58 ↗ city facilities. Um and so the uh the

58:03 ↗ guidance associated with this document

58:05 ↗ um and the requirements um would likely

58:08 ↗ come into play in the next 5 to 10 years

58:10 ↗ depending on what facilities projects

58:11 ↗ end up moving forward.

58:16 ↗ Additionally, uh and this goes back to a

58:19 ↗ previous presentation I did on the fuel

58:20 ↗ transition assessment. Um but we've

58:23 ↗ worked in um a um some language related

58:27 ↗ to um requiring electrification

58:30 ↗ feasibility assessments for any

58:33 ↗ replacement of fossil fuel equipment. Um

58:36 ↗ and so uh in in city facilities and and

58:39 ↗ infrastructure projects. And so what

58:41 ↗ this really means is um making sure that

58:43 ↗ if we have um uh equipment that uses

58:47 ↗ fossil fuels, we're at the very least

58:49 ↗ looking at what would it take to use to

58:51 ↗ electrify that equipment or to use

58:54 ↗ lowcarbon uh alternatives if we need to

58:58 ↗ replace that equipment. Um and this is

59:00 ↗ modeled after um the Pierce County

59:03 ↗ Electric First Policy, which um kind of

59:05 ↗ set the standard for for what this could

59:07 ↗ look like.

59:12 ↗ digging into uh infrastructure specific

59:16 ↗ changes. Um the updates to the policy

59:20 ↗ identifies envision as the standard for

59:22 ↗ evaluating our infrastructure pro

59:25 ↗ projects. Envision as a tool to do that

59:27 ↗ and envision um like lead has both uh

59:30 ↗ multiple levels of evaluation. you can

59:33 ↗ get a project um that is either

59:35 ↗ verified, it can be envision certified

59:37 ↗ silver, gold or platinum and that just

59:40 ↗ changes kind of the amount of credits or

59:43 ↗ um points that a project gets on the

59:46 ↗ envision toolkit.

59:49 ↗ Um

59:50 ↗ using Envision was recommended as this

59:53 ↗ is a national standard and covers all

59:55 ↗ sorts of infrastructure projects and

59:57 ↗ covers everything from water use, energy

1:00:00 ↗ use, land use, etc. and it does

1:00:03 ↗ specifically focus on projects that lead

1:00:05 ↗ and other building certifications cannot

1:00:07 ↗ cover.

1:00:08 ↗ The proposed updates requires um

1:00:12 ↗ identification of a pilot project to

1:00:13 ↗ test out how the envision toolkit would

1:00:15 ↗ work um by the end of 2027. So that

1:00:18 ↗ would be thinking about how we are using

1:00:20 ↗ Envision as a a pilot project uh over

1:00:23 ↗ 2026 and 2027 and seeing what does that

1:00:26 ↗ actually mean for project implementation

1:00:29 ↗ for project planning um for budget

1:00:31 ↗ impacts all those types of questions.

1:00:35 ↗ And then uh additionally uh the policy

1:00:38 ↗ calls out um the the necessary support

1:00:41 ↗ for staff training of the uh envision

1:00:44 ↗ tool and for the implementation of best

1:00:46 ↗ practices uh for sustainability in

1:00:49 ↗ infrastructure projects. Making sure

1:00:51 ↗ that our teams across the city are

1:00:54 ↗ trained up on how to use these tools as

1:00:56 ↗ well as um the best practices related to

1:00:59 ↗ sustainability to incorporate into all

1:01:01 ↗ phases of their projects.

1:01:06 ↗ And then the final set of changes um

1:01:09 ↗ these were added in coordination with

1:01:10 ↗ our solid waste analyst at the city Sam

1:01:13 ↗ Tarvin. Um and these uh changes relate

1:01:16 ↗ to our waste diversion practices for

1:01:18 ↗ city projects. It sets uh diversion

1:01:22 ↗ goals for construction and demol

1:01:24 ↗ demolition projects. Establishes a

1:01:27 ↗ three-year waste audit uh timeline for

1:01:29 ↗ city facilities facilities on a rotating

1:01:32 ↗ basis. So we understand um how we're

1:01:35 ↗ doing on uh waste diversion at different

1:01:37 ↗ city facilities. And then it also

1:01:39 ↗ mandates waste reduction and source

1:01:41 ↗ separation of solid waste at city

1:01:43 ↗ facilities.

1:01:48 ↗ And with that I'm going to go into um

1:01:51 ↗ discussions we've had with the

1:01:52 ↗ environmental board. So, um, the

1:01:54 ↗ sustainability team, um, brought this

1:01:57 ↗ the proposed updates to this policy to

1:01:59 ↗ the environmental board in September and

1:02:01 ↗ October of this year, and the

1:02:03 ↗ environmental board approved the policy

1:02:05 ↗ changes for uh, council committee's

1:02:07 ↗ review and potential adoption um, with

1:02:10 ↗ uh, additional feedback.

1:02:12 ↗ Some of that feedback included that one

1:02:15 ↗ member of the environmental board did

1:02:16 ↗ not recommend moving the policy forward

1:02:18 ↗ and asked for staff to specifically

1:02:20 ↗ strengthen the requirements related to

1:02:22 ↗ city infrastructure projects. Um and

1:02:25 ↗ that is related to identifying specific

1:02:28 ↗ requirements for um as many aspects as

1:02:33 ↗ we of as we can for infrastructure

1:02:35 ↗ projects such as requiring uh percent um

1:02:39 ↗ recycled material uh in material used

1:02:42 ↗ for uh infrastructure projects um etc.

1:02:47 ↗ Additionally, the environmental board

1:02:48 ↗ posed two questions um that uh staff and

1:02:53 ↗ the administration incorporated into

1:02:54 ↗ this presentation uh for committee

1:02:57 ↗ members to consider in the policy review

1:02:59 ↗ and those are discussed in the direction

1:03:01 ↗ needed slides. And then the

1:03:03 ↗ environmental board requested four

1:03:05 ↗ changes that were incorporated into this

1:03:07 ↗ policy that I'll cover now. So the four

1:03:11 ↗ changes that the environmental board uh

1:03:13 ↗ requested that were incorporated, one

1:03:15 ↗ was that uh the board members asked for

1:03:17 ↗ clearly stated action steps for staff to

1:03:20 ↗ implement in 2030 or 2031. And so staff

1:03:23 ↗ have incorporated um a second evaluation

1:03:26 ↗ time frame at that point uh where we can

1:03:28 ↗ see what is working, what is not working

1:03:31 ↗ and adjust accordingly for this policy.

1:03:34 ↗ Uh the board re uh recommended

1:03:36 ↗ reorganizing the policy to highlight

1:03:38 ↗ policy goals more uh clearly at the

1:03:41 ↗ beginning.

1:03:43 ↗ Um as well as to incorporate language

1:03:45 ↗ noting that the city will use the policy

1:03:47 ↗ to be a leader in sustainable project

1:03:49 ↗ implementation.

1:03:50 ↗ And then finally, board members

1:03:52 ↗ recommended uh reorganizing the policy

1:03:54 ↗ to highlight which sections apply

1:03:56 ↗ specifically to buildings, which

1:03:57 ↗ sections specifically apply to

1:03:59 ↗ infrastructure projects, and which

1:04:01 ↗ sections apply to both building and

1:04:03 ↗ infrastructure projects.

1:04:08 ↗ Next steps for this uh policy update. Um

1:04:12 ↗ if uh we move forward, if the committee

1:04:16 ↗ recommends moving this forward, um we'd

1:04:18 ↗ be bringing this uh to uh city council

1:04:21 ↗ in uh right now we're on the schedule in

1:04:24 ↗ November. Um if adopted, um we'd be

1:04:28 ↗ identifying a uh an infrastructure

1:04:30 ↗ project to pilot envision with uh in

1:04:33 ↗ spring of 2026. Um and then would be

1:04:36 ↗ working to incorporate um this policy

1:04:38 ↗ and the sustainability principles into

1:04:41 ↗ budget development process next year as

1:04:43 ↗ well as the capital improvement plan

1:04:46 ↗ update in 2027. And then on an ongoing

1:04:49 ↗ basis would be uh working to implement

1:04:52 ↗ capital and facilities projects and

1:04:53 ↗ incorporating sustainability principles

1:04:55 ↗ into those projects based on lead and

1:04:58 ↗ based on uh envision as stated in this

1:05:01 ↗ policy. We'd be using uh would be

1:05:04 ↗ testing out invision on a pilot

1:05:06 ↗ infrastructure project and evaluating

1:05:08 ↗ how um how is that going? What is it?

1:05:11 ↗ What works for the city? What might not

1:05:13 ↗ work for the city? where really do these

1:05:15 ↗ projects um fit well? And then staff

1:05:18 ↗ would also be working to identify grant

1:05:20 ↗ and incentive funding, making sure that

1:05:23 ↗ um we leverage as many uh additional

1:05:25 ↗ resources as possible to make sure that

1:05:27 ↗ uh these uh incorporating sustainability

1:05:30 ↗ into these projects is feasible.

1:05:34 ↗ And with that, I will uh uh end on this

1:05:39 ↗ the direction needed slide. Um again the

1:05:42 ↗ the three questions um that staff have

1:05:45 ↗ for the mobility and infrastructure

1:05:47 ↗ committee members is should the city

1:05:50 ↗ apply the envision toolkit to pilot

1:05:52 ↗ projects first to better understand uh

1:05:55 ↗ their impacts or should the policy

1:05:58 ↗ require the immediate use of the

1:05:59 ↗ envision toolkit for all infrastructure

1:06:02 ↗ projects.

1:06:03 ↗ Second should the policy specify a

1:06:05 ↗ certification level required for every

1:06:07 ↗ project that uses envision? Um and again

1:06:10 ↗ those are verified uh silver, gold or

1:06:13 ↗ platinum. Or should the city use the

1:06:15 ↗ pilot projects to rec uh to provide more

1:06:18 ↗ data first? And then third, are there

1:06:21 ↗ any other feedbacks or proposed uh on

1:06:23 ↗ the proposed updates to the policy?

1:06:29 ↗ >> Thank you for their presentation.

1:06:31 ↗ Questions from the committee?

1:06:34 ↗ >> Deputy Council President D. Michelle.

1:06:37 ↗ Um, oh, and I asked a question through

1:06:40 ↗ email and thank you for your response in

1:06:42 ↗ terms of what the I think you covered

1:06:44 ↗ that uh what the stricter standards

1:06:46 ↗ might possibly be. Um, this is kind of a

1:06:49 ↗ wider question because it several times

1:06:51 ↗ referred to the budget development and

1:06:53 ↗ so maybe this is for Stacy, but uh um

1:06:57 ↗ what are we seeing? What's the landscape

1:06:58 ↗ for grant uh grants availability and uh

1:07:03 ↗ applications in the current environment

1:07:05 ↗ both the federal and the state? Are we

1:07:07 ↗ seeing grants dry up or are there does

1:07:10 ↗ there continue to be resources for for

1:07:12 ↗ grants?

1:07:16 ↗ >> Thank you. Uh deputy council president

1:07:19 ↗ DM Michelle uh Stacy Ben McKinry

1:07:21 ↗ sustainability manager. Um, in terms of

1:07:24 ↗ supporting generally our climate work

1:07:26 ↗ and sustainability work, there continue

1:07:28 ↗ to be grants at the state and regional

1:07:31 ↗ level. Um, specific to this work, uh, I

1:07:35 ↗ don't know if we've identified any

1:07:37 ↗ particular grants that would fund and

1:07:40 ↗ the upgrades needed for some of these

1:07:42 ↗ projects to um, should we uh, implement

1:07:45 ↗ the Envision tool and the requirements

1:07:48 ↗ that would be associated with this

1:07:49 ↗ policy. that is part of what we would be

1:07:51 ↗ evaluating through a pilot project and

1:07:54 ↗ yeah looking actively for those grants.

1:07:57 ↗ >> Great. And and just to clarify then uh

1:08:00 ↗ in looking at it you know you talk about

1:08:02 ↗ more flexibility for the smaller

1:08:04 ↗ projects is the idea that we're going to

1:08:07 ↗ bring small buildings into the process.

1:08:09 ↗ They're not currently in the process.

1:08:12 ↗ this uh uh if we adopt this new

1:08:16 ↗ approach, we'll be bringing more

1:08:18 ↗ buildings in to uh to analyze what their

1:08:23 ↗ sustainability is. Is that the

1:08:27 ↗ >> Yeah. So, um the current policy that

1:08:30 ↗ that we um still have from 2004

1:08:34 ↗ um

1:08:36 ↗ it has this gap where it doesn't address

1:08:38 ↗ anything under 5,000 square feet,

1:08:40 ↗ >> right? And so what the proposed updates

1:08:44 ↗ um do there is it um encourages um

1:08:48 ↗ through sustainability support um the

1:08:51 ↗ incorporation of sustainability

1:08:52 ↗ principles into uh facility projects

1:08:55 ↗ that are under 5,000 square ft. That is

1:08:58 ↗ not likely to be many projects for the

1:09:00 ↗ city. Um and then for projects between

1:09:04 ↗ 5,000 and 10,000 square feet, kind of

1:09:06 ↗ those middlesized projects, um there

1:09:10 ↗ would be kind of more um sustainable

1:09:15 ↗ uh guidance and and principles

1:09:17 ↗ incorporated into projects for those

1:09:20 ↗ size buildings. Um bringing it kind of

1:09:23 ↗ up to that lead platinum level. Um but

1:09:26 ↗ again sticking to um aligning as best we

1:09:29 ↗ can with lead platinum and not requiring

1:09:31 ↗ certification to allow for that

1:09:33 ↗ flexibility and um to cut costs with the

1:09:36 ↗ the certification. Um so that would

1:09:40 ↗ depending again on which facility

1:09:41 ↗ projects we end up moving forward over

1:09:43 ↗ the next 5 to 10 years um there could be

1:09:46 ↗ some that fall into that bucket.

1:09:47 ↗ >> Great. All right. Thank you so much.

1:09:52 ↗ >> Council Ray.

1:09:53 ↗ >> Thank you. I want to explore the

1:09:54 ↗ difference between lead and uh envision

1:09:56 ↗ for just a minute. You kind of laid out

1:09:58 ↗ some of it, but can you talk a little

1:10:00 ↗ bit more about uh lead versus envision

1:10:04 ↗ and why we would want to embrace one

1:10:06 ↗ versus the other?

1:10:09 ↗ >> Yeah, it's a thank you very much for

1:10:11 ↗ that question. Um so

1:10:14 ↗ lead is very specifically designed to

1:10:19 ↗ support building projects. Um there is

1:10:22 ↗ also lead for cities which this city is

1:10:25 ↗ a lead gold certified city as well. Um

1:10:28 ↗ so that's kind of on a community scale.

1:10:30 ↗ Um but generally the way that both lead

1:10:34 ↗ and envision work is they have these

1:10:36 ↗ large um criteria checklists

1:10:40 ↗ essentially. Um and if you meet a

1:10:43 ↗ certain threshold, if you meet a certain

1:10:45 ↗ criteria, you get points for um that uh

1:10:50 ↗ that part of the the checklist. And so

1:10:53 ↗ the way lead has been developed is that

1:10:56 ↗ uh the way you get points are all

1:10:58 ↗ associated with um a specific building

1:11:01 ↗ or a set of buildings, right? And so um

1:11:05 ↗ going into everything from energy use in

1:11:07 ↗ that facility, the sighting of that

1:11:09 ↗ building itself, um resource resource

1:11:13 ↗ use in the building, how m what

1:11:15 ↗ materials go into that building. Um and

1:11:18 ↗ it's generally not used for anything

1:11:21 ↗ other than buildings.

1:11:24 ↗ Envision was specifically designed to

1:11:26 ↗ address the gap of other types of

1:11:29 ↗ projects that might not have buildings

1:11:32 ↗ associated with them. Um, so I was

1:11:35 ↗ looking this up um right before this and

1:11:38 ↗ um when it comes to transportation

1:11:40 ↗ projects that could include um transit

1:11:42 ↗ centers or um the Hline rapid ride

1:11:47 ↗ expansion in uh King County uh was an

1:11:50 ↗ Envision project, right? So it can be

1:11:52 ↗ kind of um other types of these big

1:11:56 ↗ capital projects. Um it can be

1:11:58 ↗ interchanges onto highways. It can be um

1:12:01 ↗ parks projects. Um and so the way those

1:12:06 ↗ criteria are laid out in envision and

1:12:08 ↗ and which ones you're picking are

1:12:11 ↗ specifically designed for those types of

1:12:13 ↗ projects as opposed to buildings. Does

1:12:15 ↗ that help answer the question? Okay,

1:12:17 ↗ >> that's that's perfect. So on the

1:12:19 ↗ envision model does it have a parallel

1:12:23 ↗ structure like lead has uh you know

1:12:25 ↗ various tiers of of goodness?

1:12:27 ↗ >> Yes.

1:12:28 ↗ >> And are we looking at maintaining a um

1:12:31 ↗ parallel target I guess?

1:12:35 ↗ >> Yeah. So um that is one of the questions

1:12:38 ↗ for the committee. Um for lead we have

1:12:40 ↗ these specific targets related to lead

1:12:42 ↗ platinum um that we're going for. um

1:12:46 ↗ staff are recommending um that we do not

1:12:50 ↗ set a specific target for the use of the

1:12:53 ↗ Envision toolkit yet. And part of that

1:12:55 ↗ goes uh to the point um that we haven't

1:12:59 ↗ used the Envision toolkit before um for

1:13:03 ↗ uh City of Isiqua projects. Um generally

1:13:06 ↗ there are just fewer of these projects

1:13:08 ↗ compared to lead projects nationwide. Um

1:13:11 ↗ and so rather than setting a a a kind of

1:13:15 ↗ a goal or a requirement that we need to

1:13:18 ↗ meet, um the current the intention as

1:13:21 ↗ written right now is to try a pilot

1:13:24 ↗ project and see what does it take to get

1:13:26 ↗ to that verified level or that plat lead

1:13:29 ↗ uh envision platinum level and evaluate

1:13:32 ↗ kind of what uh what is feasible and

1:13:35 ↗ makes sense for uh us to try and uh

1:13:38 ↗ achieve through our different capital

1:13:40 ↗ projects.

1:13:41 ↗ Perfect. What a great segue because my

1:13:42 ↗ next couple questions had to do with the

1:13:44 ↗ pilot and I think you answered the first

1:13:46 ↗ one which is what do we hope to learn

1:13:48 ↗ and we're trying to really tune in on

1:13:50 ↗ what level makes sense. So, yay. Thank

1:13:52 ↗ you for uh answering that before I even

1:13:54 ↗ asked it. Um what's the impact if we

1:13:57 ↗ don't do a pilot

1:14:00 ↗ >> and just jump into to using the Envision

1:14:04 ↗ toolkit?

1:14:05 ↗ I think um if we were to jump in using

1:14:09 ↗ the Envision toolkit without a pilot

1:14:11 ↗ project um part of the challenge there

1:14:14 ↗ is that we don't necessarily know what

1:14:16 ↗ the impact on our capital projects will

1:14:19 ↗ be. um if we are trying to become certif

1:14:23 ↗ certified for these projects um uh and

1:14:26 ↗ this goes to your your first question

1:14:28 ↗ too as by piloting envision we're going

1:14:31 ↗ to understand um what does it really

1:14:33 ↗ mean to use alternative materials what

1:14:35 ↗ does it mean if we are uh incorporating

1:14:38 ↗ these sustainability principles really

1:14:40 ↗ during the design process of a capital

1:14:42 ↗ project um what does it mean if we're um

1:14:45 ↗ making sure that we're uh managing waste

1:14:48 ↗ that comes out of the project in certain

1:14:50 ↗ ways. And so without knowing that uh

1:14:54 ↗ better at the the outset and without

1:14:57 ↗ kind of the training that goes along

1:14:58 ↗ with uh lead uh envision projects um we

1:15:02 ↗ are unsure what kind of the financial

1:15:04 ↗ implications will be or um exactly what

1:15:08 ↗ the impact on uh kind of how if that

1:15:11 ↗ will delay capital projects and

1:15:13 ↗ infrastructure projects or not.

1:15:15 ↗ >> Do you have anything

1:15:19 ↗ I was just going to add um the impact on

1:15:22 ↗ staff capacity and we currently don't

1:15:24 ↗ have any staff trained and envisioned.

1:15:26 ↗ So that's something following council

1:15:28 ↗ approval we would start rolling out so

1:15:30 ↗ staff become prepared to test out this

1:15:33 ↗ this tool.

1:15:34 ↗ >> Right. Last question on pilot. How do we

1:15:37 ↗ select a pilot project? Um given that I

1:15:39 ↗ mean kind of like this about envision

1:15:41 ↗ that it's uh multi-dimensional but that

1:15:43 ↗ also uh adds complexity that you know a

1:15:47 ↗ uh transportation project is not a parks

1:15:49 ↗ project it's not an interchange project

1:15:51 ↗ is not a building project and how do we

1:15:52 ↗ select a pilot that gives us confidence

1:15:55 ↗ that we can achieve what you were just

1:15:57 ↗ outlining

1:15:58 ↗ >> it's a great question I think um the

1:16:01 ↗ intention in selecting a pilot project

1:16:03 ↗ would be um coordination between the

1:16:06 ↗ sustainability department as well as the

1:16:08 ↗ uh departments that are most likely to

1:16:10 ↗ be uh affected by this policy. So,

1:16:12 ↗ public works and parks uh specifically

1:16:15 ↗ um uh potentially administrative

1:16:18 ↗ services depending on on the

1:16:19 ↗ infrastructure projects. Um but in

1:16:22 ↗ discussion with those leaderships and

1:16:23 ↗ those those project managers um trying

1:16:26 ↗ to identify which project um can maybe

1:16:30 ↗ be we can maybe implement in vision um

1:16:33 ↗ at the right point for that project. And

1:16:35 ↗ so um discussing

1:16:38 ↗ um where projects are at um where uh

1:16:42 ↗ there might be the best opportunities to

1:16:44 ↗ see kind of the breadth of what Envision

1:16:46 ↗ can do for these infrastructure projects

1:16:48 ↗ as well. Um and so those conversations

1:16:51 ↗ we would expect to have in early 2026.

1:16:54 ↗ Um and uh in coordination with that

1:16:57 ↗ leadership and project teams identify um

1:17:00 ↗ at least one maybe additional projects

1:17:02 ↗ that we want to test it out on.

1:17:04 ↗ um there would be nothing to to stop us

1:17:06 ↗ from

1:17:07 ↗ trying to work with two different types

1:17:09 ↗ of projects to see how it rolls out on

1:17:11 ↗ different um types of infrastructure

1:17:13 ↗ projects.

1:17:14 ↗ >> So possibly multiple pilots.

1:17:16 ↗ >> It could be multiple projects.

1:17:18 ↗ >> Great. Thank you. I'm good.

1:17:21 ↗ >> Deputy President Michelle.

1:17:23 ↗ >> Just one more question. So uh on the

1:17:25 ↗ next steps it says full city council

1:17:28 ↗ policy review in November of 2025. Uh

1:17:31 ↗ but it doesn't say adoption. So, are we

1:17:33 ↗ is it a will we be voting on it in

1:17:36 ↗ November? Uh or will we just be

1:17:39 ↗ reviewing the policy?

1:17:45 ↗ Uh do you want to jump in on that?

1:17:48 ↗ >> Dep

1:17:50 ↗ I I can jump in. We would we would be

1:17:52 ↗ looking at a council adoption.

1:17:54 ↗ >> Okay. All right. Thanks.

1:17:59 ↗ >> Thank you uh for the presentation. I had

1:18:01 ↗ a question about the diversion goal uh

1:18:04 ↗ for construction and demolition waste.

1:18:07 ↗ Um

1:18:08 ↗ can you remind me if we are um it's a

1:18:11 ↗ 75% waste diversion for construction

1:18:13 ↗ projects and 90% diversion for

1:18:16 ↗ construction projects with demolition as

1:18:18 ↗ well as encouraging salvage and

1:18:20 ↗ deconstruction assessments. Um, do those

1:18:23 ↗ numbers uh line up or align with the

1:18:27 ↗ goals we have for residential waste as

1:18:30 ↗ well? I can't remember the they sound

1:18:33 ↗ similar, but I can't remember if they're

1:18:35 ↗ the same. And if so, is there a reason

1:18:38 ↗ that they are aligning?

1:18:40 ↗ >> Um, I can follow up with the council

1:18:43 ↗ committee on that with um after checking

1:18:46 ↗ in with our solid waste analyst. um they

1:18:48 ↗ do roughly align with our communitywide

1:18:51 ↗ um uh material waste diversion goals um

1:18:55 ↗ as well, but I'll I'll check in with uh

1:18:58 ↗ Sam to see if there's any other specific

1:19:00 ↗ um uh information that went into those

1:19:03 ↗ numbers.

1:19:04 ↗ >> Yeah, I would appreciate that. I was

1:19:06 ↗ trying to

1:19:08 ↗ kind of thinking out loud whether or not

1:19:09 ↗ those 75 and 90 are kind of magic

1:19:12 ↗ numbers for the environmental community

1:19:14 ↗ or our ICAP um plan, our climate plan as

1:19:19 ↗ well. So, I was just curious if that

1:19:21 ↗ could be followed up on.

1:19:23 ↗ >> Yes. Um when we look at the pilot

1:19:26 ↗ projects, the administration's

1:19:28 ↗ recommending that u we do a pilot

1:19:31 ↗ project on these rather than uh making a

1:19:33 ↗ vision required for everything. Um

1:19:40 ↗ council president, excuse me, council

1:19:42 ↗ member Ray uh indicated that there might

1:19:45 ↗ be when you answered his question, there

1:19:46 ↗ might be multiple projects that we would

1:19:48 ↗ be looking at. Is there a is there a top

1:19:51 ↗ number that we would kind of cap it at?

1:19:53 ↗ In other words, when does the pilot

1:19:55 ↗ stop? I guess

1:19:58 ↗ >> that is a that is a great question. And

1:20:00 ↗ um I

1:20:02 ↗ currently the way the policy updates are

1:20:04 ↗ written um we'd be implementing pilot

1:20:07 ↗ project or pro pilot projects over 2026

1:20:10 ↗ and 2027. then in 2028 would be

1:20:12 ↗ evaluating um how those pilot projects

1:20:16 ↗ have gone and then either recommending

1:20:18 ↗ changes to the policy or thinking about

1:20:20 ↗ how we might want to update the policy

1:20:21 ↗ at that point. Um we have not set kind

1:20:25 ↗ of an upper limit on the number of of

1:20:28 ↗ pilot projects but um I think uh that

1:20:31 ↗ number would be determined based on um

1:20:34 ↗ staff capacity and uh project capacity

1:20:37 ↗ to take on the extra work of of

1:20:40 ↗ evaluating a project against envision.

1:20:43 ↗ Um, I imagine it wouldn't be very many

1:20:48 ↗ projects. And

1:20:50 ↗ >> I would just like to add, we also want

1:20:52 ↗ to make sure that we're using a pilot

1:20:53 ↗ project on different types of

1:20:55 ↗ infrastructure that we build so we can

1:20:57 ↗ understand impacts for different types

1:20:59 ↗ of road projects versus um water quality

1:21:02 ↗ projects. And so um because it may be it

1:21:05 ↗ may be different uh as we as we look at

1:21:08 ↗ what this means for those. So we want to

1:21:10 ↗ have a variety of projects to be able to

1:21:12 ↗ use as as pilots so that we can learn um

1:21:15 ↗ what this really looks like should we

1:21:16 ↗ apply and vision to every project and at

1:21:19 ↗ what standard we want to do that.

1:21:22 ↗ Now thank you for that perspective.

1:21:23 ↗ Appreciate that. Um those are the

1:21:26 ↗ questions that I had. If there are no

1:21:28 ↗ other questions from the committee,

1:21:29 ↗ we'll open it up to public comment. Uh

1:21:31 ↗ there's no one in the room at this time

1:21:34 ↗ for public comment. I'll look to our

1:21:36 ↗ clerk to see if there are any members of

1:21:39 ↗ the public online that might want to

1:21:41 ↗ comment.

1:21:41 ↗ >> Not at this time, chair.

1:21:43 ↗ >> Okay. Thank you. Again, if members of

1:21:46 ↗ the public want to comment on this topic

1:21:47 ↗ or any other topic, they're encouraged

1:21:48 ↗ to reach out to us via email at isqua

1:21:52 ↗ councilisquawa.gov.

1:21:55 ↗ Thank you. Um well that then takes us to

1:21:57 ↗ uh discussion of this particular topic

1:22:00 ↗ and um the three questions that have

1:22:02 ↗ been posed for us this evening. So um

1:22:08 ↗ Deputy Council President De Michelle's

1:22:10 ↗ going to go first because I feel like

1:22:13 ↗ she should go first.

1:22:16 ↗ >> Yeah. Um, thank you so much and uh,

1:22:19 ↗ first of all, thank you for the thorough

1:22:21 ↗ um, you know, documentation that you

1:22:23 ↗ provided and I really love it when we

1:22:25 ↗ get a red line and uh, and then we can

1:22:27 ↗ look at that and so thank you so much.

1:22:30 ↗ Um, so the first question uh, should we

1:22:34 ↗ should the city apply the envision

1:22:35 ↗ toolkit to pilot projects first?

1:22:37 ↗ Absolutely. I think we just said that

1:22:39 ↗ with the previous group that was

1:22:40 ↗ presenting to us that uh the pilot uh

1:22:44 ↗ really gives us a lot of information and

1:22:46 ↗ data about how we can um incorporate it

1:22:49 ↗ throughout the organization uh later on.

1:22:52 ↗ So yes to that. Uh should the policy

1:22:55 ↗ specify a certification level or not?

1:22:58 ↗ And I would agree with the staff

1:23:00 ↗ recommendation there as well. um let's

1:23:03 ↗ gather the data and um then we can set

1:23:06 ↗ that and I think really this this

1:23:09 ↗ suggested change is very sensitive to

1:23:12 ↗ those smaller buildings where they may

1:23:15 ↗ not have the money to um you know aim

1:23:18 ↗ for a high certification but they uh but

1:23:21 ↗ we're bringing them on board and they're

1:23:22 ↗ doing something rather than nothing and

1:23:24 ↗ I think that's that's really good. Um I

1:23:27 ↗ don't well do I have any other feedback?

1:23:30 ↗ The only feedback I would give you is uh

1:23:33 ↗ I think it's really always important

1:23:35 ↗ when we get input from a board that we

1:23:37 ↗ go back to that board and say you know

1:23:39 ↗ you affected policy and the uh council

1:23:44 ↗ uh approved that and you made a

1:23:46 ↗ difference and in this particular case

1:23:48 ↗ they did make a difference in both the

1:23:51 ↗ the recommendation and the um actual uh

1:23:54 ↗ wording of the proposal. So I'd really

1:23:57 ↗ like to see that loop closed. uh with

1:24:00 ↗ them. And

1:24:02 ↗ um

1:24:06 ↗ I know I had something else to say, but

1:24:07 ↗ I will turn it over to my fellow council

1:24:09 ↗ members and see if I can remember what

1:24:10 ↗ the last point was. Oh. Oh, I know what

1:24:13 ↗ it was. The reason I asked the question

1:24:15 ↗ about whether we were reviewing or

1:24:17 ↗ adopting is uh I think this could go on

1:24:19 ↗ the consent agenda. So, um that would be

1:24:22 ↗ my final comment on on that. All right.

1:24:26 ↗ Thank you,

1:24:28 ↗ >> Councilman Ray.

1:24:29 ↗ >> Thanks. Um, so on question number one

1:24:32 ↗ about piloting, I have to tell you uh

1:24:35 ↗ coming into this meeting, I was not

1:24:37 ↗ really a big fan of piloting and um

1:24:40 ↗ because it's like let's just get on with

1:24:42 ↗ it. We we take too long for everything

1:24:43 ↗ we do anyway. Let's get going. Um but

1:24:46 ↗ you convinced me so um hooray for you.

1:24:49 ↗ Um but seriously, I know I think

1:24:51 ↗ piloting is the way to go. Um on uh

1:24:53 ↗ question number two, I'm going to

1:24:54 ↗ suggest a hybrid, which is should the

1:24:57 ↗ policy specify a certification level or

1:25:00 ↗ should we wait for the pilot? Um maybe

1:25:03 ↗ it's both. Maybe we set what the target

1:25:05 ↗ we think the target should be and then

1:25:08 ↗ we use the pilot as an opportunity to

1:25:10 ↗ true that up. We say we think it should

1:25:12 ↗ be platinum, but you know, once we did

1:25:14 ↗ the pilot, we think it should be

1:25:15 ↗ platinum plus or you know, platinum

1:25:18 ↗ minus, whatever, whatever makes sense.

1:25:20 ↗ But let's set a target because I don't

1:25:22 ↗ want to get into a situation where we

1:25:24 ↗ look like we're retreating from a a

1:25:26 ↗ particular standard we have today where

1:25:28 ↗ we're saying we're a lead, you know,

1:25:30 ↗ platinum and now we're uh we don't know.

1:25:33 ↗ So set the target there and then true it

1:25:35 ↗ up over where afterwards. I think we can

1:25:37 ↗ do that. That's not, you know, if the if

1:25:39 ↗ it doesn't work, you know, this body is

1:25:42 ↗ pretty uh flexible in terms of of being

1:25:45 ↗ rational. So So those are my my thoughts

1:25:47 ↗ on the first two questions. Um, I have a

1:25:49 ↗ couple of of things I'd like to just um

1:25:52 ↗ suggest. Um, you know, number three,

1:25:54 ↗ which is um be really clear and

1:25:57 ↗ intentional on the pilot on what your

1:25:59 ↗ objectives are. Um, I think the deputy

1:26:01 ↗ city administrator uh mentioned

1:26:03 ↗ something about learning from the pilot.

1:26:05 ↗ So, be very specific on what you intend

1:26:07 ↗ to learn and what you're going to

1:26:08 ↗ evaluate. Um, and this may um vary

1:26:11 ↗ depending upon whether you're doing a

1:26:12 ↗ transportation project or a building

1:26:14 ↗ project or a parks project, what have

1:26:16 ↗ you. So, um I just would like to see the

1:26:20 ↗ pilot be very structured. Um because

1:26:23 ↗ I've run my share of pilots that have

1:26:25 ↗ been nonstructured and then they get

1:26:26 ↗ lost in the woods and it's not happy. Um

1:26:31 ↗ and then two other thoughts that have

1:26:33 ↗ nothing to do with what you talked

1:26:34 ↗ about, but are really important. One is

1:26:36 ↗ communications and outreach. This

1:26:37 ↗ touches a lot of people and a lot of

1:26:39 ↗ people care about this stuff. We need to

1:26:41 ↗ let the community know what we're doing

1:26:42 ↗ and why we're doing it and how how what

1:26:44 ↗ the benefit to people of Isqua is on

1:26:46 ↗ this. And then I I bind up a little bit

1:26:49 ↗ on not doing formal certification

1:26:51 ↗ because formal certification has a lot

1:26:54 ↗ of political cache and so don't

1:26:57 ↗ underestimate the power of saying we

1:26:59 ↗ built this building and it is envision

1:27:01 ↗ platinum plus certified and we are

1:27:03 ↗ really proud of that as you cut the

1:27:05 ↗ ribbon. So um just keep that in mind

1:27:08 ↗ that there is there is um there's cost

1:27:10 ↗ associated with the with the um

1:27:13 ↗ certification but there's also value. So

1:27:16 ↗ u manage that. Other than that I think

1:27:17 ↗ this is great. I agree. I think we can

1:27:19 ↗ do this on consent if we're going to do

1:27:21 ↗ um if this is coming forward for

1:27:22 ↗ adoption.

1:27:23 ↗ >> Thank you council Ray. Um similar to

1:27:27 ↗ everyone else question number one is

1:27:30 ↗ yes. Question number two, um I would

1:27:33 ↗ agree with uh

1:27:36 ↗ council member Ray that perhaps because

1:27:38 ↗ the number of projects as you point out

1:27:41 ↗ is 14 to 28 per year that if we do get a

1:27:45 ↗ project that we go ahead and set a

1:27:48 ↗ standard, start it and true it up

1:27:51 ↗ because we're not going to get that many

1:27:52 ↗ chances to do those pro to do those

1:27:55 ↗ projects anyway. we should take

1:27:57 ↗ advantage of any ones that we do get

1:27:59 ↗ along the way would be my feeling. Um

1:28:03 ↗ for number three, I think that uh

1:28:05 ↗ council member Ray's right that we need

1:28:06 ↗ to um get word out to as many different

1:28:10 ↗ stakeholders as possible. Um uh deputy

1:28:14 ↗ city administrator

1:28:16 ↗ um if you could convey a message to uh

1:28:20 ↗ Wally Bobitz to let the chamber board

1:28:24 ↗ know about this on Friday when we when

1:28:26 ↗ we meet with them. Um that'll give them

1:28:29 ↗ some early notice. Um, and they can uh

1:28:32 ↗ spread that to any uh of their members

1:28:35 ↗ who might be doing uh remodels or any

1:28:38 ↗ new businesses that might be coming into

1:28:39 ↗ town to give them an opportunity to to

1:28:41 ↗ show their green stripes, so to speak,

1:28:43 ↗ uh along the way. So, um that's one way

1:28:45 ↗ that we can perhaps get the word out as

1:28:47 ↗ early as possible. But I'm sure you have

1:28:49 ↗ a number of stakeholders that you have

1:28:51 ↗ listed uh that you want to get that word

1:28:54 ↗ out to as well. And as soon as this gets

1:28:56 ↗ approved, I think that would be very

1:28:58 ↗ wise to do so that we can get uh as many

1:29:01 ↗ projects encouraged to try this out uh

1:29:04 ↗ as possible. So um that concludes my

1:29:08 ↗ comments on that. Um anything else from

1:29:10 ↗ the committee?

1:29:12 ↗ Okay. Thank you so much for the

1:29:14 ↗ presentation and and um uh Stacy

1:29:17 ↗ McKinstry, I want to extend a special

1:29:19 ↗ thanks to you for your work on the board

1:29:22 ↗ of directors for fish and thank you for

1:29:25 ↗ a fine work during salmon days and

1:29:27 ↗ salmon on sunset. You uh at fish do a

1:29:31 ↗ mighty amount of work with a small

1:29:33 ↗ number of people and thank you very

1:29:35 ↗ much. There's no other business before

1:29:37 ↗ the committee. Uh we will be adjourned.

Approved minutes

The minutes PDF below is the canonical record. Structured parsing of attendance and motions for this body's minutes format is not yet implemented — open the PDF for the full content.

Open PDF