City Council Planning, Development & Environment Committee · Tuesday, June 28, 2022 · City Council Digest

3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Minutes of June 7, 2022

packet pp.7

Previously discussed: Equity Board · Jun 1, 2022 Environmental Board · Jun 8, 2022

Open packet at p.7 ↗

Staff report:

APPROVAL OF MINUTES a) 06-07-22 City Council Planning, Development & Page (0000) Environment Committee Minutes The Committee unanimously recommended that enhanced treatment of employee only parking lots be required and that the proposed code amendments proceed to the full Council for adoption.

4. AGENDA ITEMS

Heat Pump Program for Low Income Residents ID 1136

30 min · Stacy Vynne McKinstry, Sustainability Manager · packet pp.26

Previously discussed: Environmental Board · Jun 8, 2022

▶ Watch from 0:45 Open packet at p.26 ↗

Staff report:

The Administration recommends an additional appropriation of $100,000 from the Sustainability Fund to implement a Clean Buildings Initiative.

Issaquah Clean Buildings Initiative ID 1188

Director · 30 min · Stacy Vynne McKinstry, Sustainability Manager Jen Davis Hayes, Economic Development · packet pp.43

Topics: Elections

▶ Watch from 18:12 Open packet at p.43 ↗

Staff report:

Direction Needed The Administration is requesting concurrence with the proposed Issaquah Clean Buildings Initiative and direction on whether to proceed with an additional appropriation of $100,000 from the Sustainability Fund.

2825 segments .txt ↗

0:01 ↗ oh

0:03 ↗ can they not hear me

0:12 ↗ welcome everyone i council member hunt

0:14 ↗ called the

0:16 ↗ june 28

0:17 ↗ 2022 city council planning development

0:20 ↗ and environment committee meeting to

0:21 ↗ order

0:23 ↗ i am council member hunt and i am here

0:25 ↗ with council member ray and council

0:27 ↗ president walsh

0:30 ↗ on our agenda this evening we have two

0:32 ↗ items and there will also be public

0:34 ↗ comments opportunities there are

0:35 ↗ multiple public comment opportunities at

0:37 ↗ tonight's meeting there's a general

0:38 ↗ public comment opportunity at the

0:40 ↗ beginning of the meeting or you can make

0:41 ↗ comments after the presentation and

0:43 ↗ council question and answer period on

0:45 ↗ tonight's two agenda items

0:47 ↗ members of the public may address

0:49 ↗ council at this time in person or

0:51 ↗ virtually and those who signed up in

0:52 ↗ advance to make comments will be called

0:54 ↗ on first if you are joining us virtually

0:56 ↗ and would like to make comments

0:58 ↗ please raise your virtual hands if you

1:00 ↗ are on the phone press star three if

1:02 ↗ you've joined by computer or smartphone

1:04 ↗ look for a hand icon this varies by

1:05 ↗ device one option may be to go to the

1:08 ↗ participant panel

1:09 ↗ and close and choose the raise hand icon

1:12 ↗ in the lower right hand corner

1:15 ↗ and i do not see anyone in the room

1:17 ↗ so i will take a minute to see if

1:19 ↗ anybody would like to give general

1:21 ↗ public comments to the committee at this

1:23 ↗ time and i'll check in with the city

1:25 ↗ clerk clerk has anyone indicated

1:27 ↗ indicated a desire to speak

1:30 ↗ council member hunt no one has signed up

1:32 ↗ previously to speak at public comment

1:36 ↗ thank you as a reminder written comments

1:38 ↗ can be submitted at any time to city

1:40 ↗ council issaquahua.gov

1:44 ↗ and with that we will move to our first

1:47 ↗ agenda item of the evening which is

1:49 ↗ approved

1:50 ↗ minutes we have minutes from the june 7

1:52 ↗ 2022 city council planning development

1:55 ↗ and environment committee meeting

2:00 ↗ and i will check in with the committee

2:01 ↗ members if there is any corrections or

2:03 ↗ additions on this item

2:07 ↗ since i wasn't at the meeting i don't

2:09 ↗ know that i can uh provide

2:11 ↗ anything there

2:12 ↗ okay thank you

2:14 ↗ um i had one comment which is

2:16 ↗ uh that one of the recommendations was

2:20 ↗ to

2:21 ↗ there there were several process

2:23 ↗ recommendations that came out of that

2:24 ↗ meeting as far as addressing

2:27 ↗ um

2:28 ↗ community concerns around the

2:32 ↗ the process and clarifying things and

2:34 ↗ one of them was to make sure that the

2:36 ↗ goals and outcomes chart that's used to

2:38 ↗ guide the title 18 process was

2:40 ↗ easily available and is with the rest of

2:42 ↗ the title 18 documents on the website um

2:45 ↗ and so that would just be one

2:47 ↗ clarification that i'd like to suggest

2:49 ↗ adding to the minutes

2:51 ↗ um

2:52 ↗ other than that i think it i other aside

2:54 ↗ from that minor

2:56 ↗ addition i thought this correctly

2:57 ↗ captured our meeting minutes

3:03 ↗ so i'll check in if we can make that one

3:06 ↗ addition to the meeting minutes and then

3:08 ↗ with that we can approve as amended

3:10 ↗ certainly we can make that change

3:13 ↗ great thank you um

3:15 ↗ and i think we can formally vote

3:17 ↗ although we can abstain um so those in

3:20 ↗ favor of approving the meeting minutes

3:22 ↗ as um as would be amended by my previous

3:25 ↗ statement signify by saying aye aye aye

3:28 ↗ those opposed no

3:30 ↗ um so the next item is uh gen is id 1136

3:36 ↗ heat pump program for low income

3:37 ↗ residents and this will be presented by

3:40 ↗ stacey vin mckinstry the sustainability

3:42 ↗ manager so welcome stacy

4:04 ↗ all right thank you council member hunt

4:06 ↗ ray and council president walsh

4:08 ↗ tonight i'm joined by amy bettel from

4:10 ↗ spark northwest she's here to help

4:12 ↗ answer any questions that you might have

4:14 ↗ this evening

4:16 ↗ so tonight we are here requesting your

4:18 ↗ approval to proceed with an additional

4:21 ↗ appropriation of 125 thousand dollars

4:24 ↗ from the sustainability fund to support

4:26 ↗ the low-income component of our heat

4:28 ↗ pump program

4:32 ↗ as you are aware buildings are one of

4:34 ↗ the most rapidly growing sources of

4:36 ↗ greenhouse gas emissions in washington

4:38 ↗ state and buildings and homes account

4:40 ↗ for about 61 percent of issaquah's

4:42 ↗ greenhouse gas emissions

4:44 ↗ investing in energy efficiency is a

4:46 ↗ cost-effective way to reduce our

4:48 ↗ greenhouse gas emissions

4:50 ↗ finding opportunities to work with

4:52 ↗ existing homes and buildings to support

4:54 ↗ energy efficiency and greenhouse gas

4:56 ↗ emissions

4:57 ↗ reduction can be challenging

5:00 ↗ the administration is seeking this

5:02 ↗ appropriation to support as i mentioned

5:04 ↗ our heat pump program for low-income

5:07 ↗ residents

5:08 ↗ this program will support the city's

5:10 ↗ work with existing homes and buildings

5:12 ↗ while providing an equity focus

5:14 ↗ the heat pump program was identified as

5:16 ↗ an early action within the climate

5:18 ↗ action plan

5:20 ↗ funding for installation and low-income

5:22 ↗ housing again will provide that equity

5:24 ↗ component to what is a larger campaign

5:26 ↗ and program

5:29 ↗ the city is partnering with the

5:31 ↗ non-profit organization spark northwest

5:33 ↗ as well as the cities of kirkland mercer

5:36 ↗ island bellevue and redmond to run a

5:38 ↗ heat pump program

5:39 ↗ we are also working with imagine housing

5:42 ↗ hopelink

5:43 ↗ king county housing authority with the

5:45 ↗ intent to really maximize the funding

5:47 ↗ and to help identify the residents that

5:49 ↗ are most in need of energy upgrades

5:52 ↗ as residents of the northwest face more

5:54 ↗ extreme heat events and seek to

5:56 ↗ electrify homes heat pumps are a very

5:58 ↗ attractive solution

6:00 ↗ they provide heating cooling in a single

6:02 ↗ package while also reducing carbon

6:04 ↗ emissions

6:05 ↗ can can help lower utility bills and

6:08 ↗ they also increase home comfort

6:11 ↗ in 2022 this program is going to run in

6:13 ↗ two parallel tracks

6:15 ↗ one track is a market rate program

6:17 ↗ that's modeled after our successful

6:19 ↗ solarize campaign

6:21 ↗ and the other track is providing energy

6:23 ↗ efficiency grants at 100 percent of the

6:26 ↗ cost to allow participants

6:29 ↗ in our low of our low-income residents

6:32 ↗ to be part of this program we are

6:34 ↗ focusing on residents that live at 80 or

6:36 ↗ below the area median income

6:39 ↗ and those that might feel the impacts

6:41 ↗ from climate change more acutely

6:44 ↗ our market rate program for homeowners

6:46 ↗ is planned to launch in july

6:48 ↗ i can speak more to that program as can

6:50 ↗ amy if there's questions but tonight we

6:53 ↗ really want to focus on this budget

6:54 ↗ request for the low-income resident

6:57 ↗ support

7:01 ↗ again we are requesting that additional

7:03 ↗ appropriation

7:05 ↗ in order to

7:06 ↗ support installation of residents that

7:09 ↗ are at 80 percent ami or below

7:12 ↗ we will be having a primary focus on

7:13 ↗ those that are at 60 and below

7:16 ↗ funding support at this level is going

7:18 ↗ to put us on par with other east side

7:20 ↗ cities to support residents that really

7:22 ↗ face the greatest energy burdens and

7:24 ↗ those those most in need of cooling

7:27 ↗ during extreme heat events

7:29 ↗ our goal is to have this component of

7:30 ↗ the program fully fund installation in

7:32 ↗ up to 20 units of subsidized housing

7:35 ↗ or aging in place seniors

7:37 ↗ the total number of units that we'll be

7:40 ↗ able to fund is really dependent on the

7:42 ↗ unit type final installation costs other

7:44 ↗ grants we secure and incentives are

7:46 ↗ available from pse and the housing

7:48 ↗ authority

7:50 ↗ in june we were able to meet with the

7:51 ↗ equity board as well as the

7:53 ↗ environmental board to talk about this

7:54 ↗ program

7:55 ↗ we received input on how to structure

7:57 ↗ our communication and marketing to best

7:59 ↗ reach the community

8:01 ↗ as well as the need to confirm that our

8:03 ↗ affordable housing

8:05 ↗ partner which is imagine housing is

8:07 ↗ really committed to long-term affordable

8:10 ↗ housing

8:11 ↗ we are continuing conversations with

8:13 ↗ imagine housing to make sure that they

8:15 ↗ will be the best partner for this

8:17 ↗ program

8:18 ↗ and if

8:20 ↗ we identify

8:21 ↗ that either their units or

8:24 ↗ imagine housing as a provider is not the

8:26 ↗ best option we'll be working with our

8:28 ↗ human services team to identify another

8:31 ↗ affordable housing provider

8:34 ↗ the transition to heat pumps for the

8:36 ↗ initial set of low-income residents is

8:38 ↗ estimated to save approximately 45

8:41 ↗ metric tons of carbon per year that's

8:43 ↗ comparable to about taking one car off

8:46 ↗ the road for every two installs

8:48 ↗ and we are also estimating that

8:51 ↗ the upgrade to heat pumps can save

8:52 ↗ residents somewhere between 160

8:57 ↗ dollars to 1500 per year it's a huge

9:00 ↗ range depending on the current heating

9:02 ↗ type used in a home

9:04 ↗ whether the heat pump is used for

9:06 ↗ cooling

9:08 ↗ in addition as just mentioned the heat

9:09 ↗ pumps do provide cooling so we really

9:11 ↗ see a huge benefit of this program is

9:14 ↗ providing climate resiliency

9:16 ↗ for populations that might be more at

9:18 ↗ risk for our warmer summers

9:23 ↗ so the options before you tonight is

9:25 ↗ supporting advancement of this budget

9:27 ↗ amendment to council

9:29 ↗ supporting the advancement of it with

9:31 ↗ modifications requesting modifications

9:34 ↗ and that we return to the committee

9:36 ↗ or not supporting advancement of this

9:39 ↗ proposal to counsel

9:42 ↗ then again before you is

9:44 ↗ the recommendation

9:46 ↗ that we have to

9:49 ↗ amend the sustainability fund

9:51 ↗ for 125 000 so we can implement the low

9:55 ↗ income component of our heat pump

9:57 ↗ program

10:02 ↗ the timing of this program

10:04 ↗ is that we will

10:05 ↗ if supported by you all move the

10:08 ↗ proposal to council in july

10:10 ↗ we are also working on an agreement with

10:12 ↗ a distributor

10:14 ↗ that will be supporting implementation

10:16 ↗ of the program

10:17 ↗ will be able to identify the appropriate

10:19 ↗ units affordable housing units for

10:21 ↗ installs by early fall and then advance

10:24 ↗ those installations in the fall

10:26 ↗ we are also in conversations with east

10:28 ↗ side cities to partner on a

10:30 ↗ expansion or continuation of this

10:32 ↗ program in 2023 and beyond

10:38 ↗ so at this time

10:39 ↗ i will pause for any questions as well

10:43 ↗ as feedback on the options before you

10:48 ↗ council president walsh

10:50 ↗ thank you i'm excited to talk about this

10:53 ↗ so you've proposed exploring a

10:55 ↗ partnership with imagine housing so can

10:58 ↗ you tell me more about that does that

11:00 ↗ mean that all of the

11:02 ↗ up to 20 heat pumps would go to imagine

11:04 ↗ housing residents or would other people

11:07 ↗ be able to apply and this is just

11:10 ↗ focusing on that

11:11 ↗ what's the proposal yeah at this time

11:13 ↗ the cities have been talking about

11:14 ↗ partnering with imagine housing

11:17 ↗ because they are the one affordable

11:19 ↗ housing provider that has

11:22 ↗ units across all five cities and afford

11:24 ↗ and imagine housing has a long-term

11:27 ↗ relationship with each of the cities

11:29 ↗ they've been very interested

11:31 ↗ in this program and willing to work with

11:33 ↗ us that's not to say that there aren't

11:35 ↗ other affordable housing providers that

11:37 ↗ might be interested

11:39 ↗ we thought working this first year with

11:41 ↗ imagine housing could be beneficial

11:44 ↗ to work through the program make sure

11:46 ↗ that there is interest and then ideally

11:48 ↗ next year we would expand to other

11:50 ↗ housing providers i think we're also

11:53 ↗ interested in looking at other members

11:54 ↗ of our community

11:57 ↗ that might feel the the impacts of

12:01 ↗ of heat events as well as could use the

12:03 ↗ energy efficiency upgrades in their

12:05 ↗ homes and so that is part of our

12:07 ↗ partnership with hope link is

12:08 ↗ identifying

12:10 ↗ individual homes where we might also

12:12 ↗ consider working with

12:14 ↗ with members of the community so with

12:16 ↗ identifying those individual homes is

12:18 ↗ that for a potential future idea it

12:21 ↗ wouldn't be included in this initial 20.

12:24 ↗ it could be included in this initial 20.

12:26 ↗ okay yes so that's something we'll be

12:28 ↗ exploring just to make sure it's the

12:30 ↗ right fit for this program okay okay

12:33 ↗ um how would residents be selected you

12:38 ↗ know

12:38 ↗ are we

12:39 ↗ asking for applications is it just

12:42 ↗ imagine housing saying

12:44 ↗ hey i've got

12:45 ↗ 20

12:46 ↗ people lined up what's the idea there

12:48 ↗ yeah that's a great question we've been

12:50 ↗ having a lot of conversations about that

12:52 ↗ and don't quite have all those details

12:54 ↗ worked out i think a lot of it will

12:56 ↗ depend

12:58 ↗ once we have our partnership with the

13:00 ↗ distributor of the program they'll be

13:02 ↗ coming out to assess the different

13:04 ↗ housing complexes and some of

13:08 ↗ them will be primed for heat pumps

13:10 ↗ others may not be the right

13:12 ↗ type of housing complex for a heat pump

13:15 ↗ so

13:16 ↗ it'll be part of an ongoing conversation

13:18 ↗ with both the installers as well as

13:21 ↗ imagine housing to make sure we're

13:22 ↗ identifying the right units

13:25 ↗ but

13:26 ↗ yeah

13:29 ↗ okay

13:30 ↗ [Music]

13:31 ↗ and

13:32 ↗ let's see last question given

13:35 ↗ kind of where you listed out the

13:38 ↗ information about the sustainability

13:39 ↗ fund budget with lots of budget left and

13:42 ↗ all of that

13:44 ↗ would it be possible to scale this

13:46 ↗ program up what are the limitations in

13:50 ↗ this first year why did you

13:52 ↗ suggest the 125 000

13:55 ↗ yeah i thought that would be

13:57 ↗ a good number

13:59 ↗ for us to test this initial install some

14:02 ↗ of imagine housing's complexes are in

14:05 ↗ around the 15 to 20 units that we

14:07 ↗ thought might be best suited

14:10 ↗ for heat pump installs this year based

14:12 ↗ on conversations with imagine housing so

14:14 ↗ having that as an initial opportunity

14:16 ↗ this year

14:17 ↗ seeing how it goes and if there's

14:19 ↗ interest from other affordable housing

14:21 ↗ providers and individuals then we could

14:23 ↗ definitely scale up

14:26 ↗ i think this amount is also about on par

14:28 ↗ with what some of the other cities were

14:30 ↗ considering as an initial

14:32 ↗ year to

14:34 ↗ see how effective this program is mostly

14:36 ↗ in terms of interest and finding the

14:38 ↗ right units

14:40 ↗ okay those are my questions

14:44 ↗ ray

14:45 ↗ great um thank you councilmember hunt um

14:48 ↗ and thanks for this this is great

14:51 ↗ so first question is i understand there

14:53 ↗ are i'm learning lots um ductless and

14:56 ↗ central ducted heat pumps are we

14:58 ↗ envisioning um

15:00 ↗ all ductless or some central or is

15:03 ↗ what's the what's the mix we're

15:05 ↗ contemplating

15:06 ↗ yeah um i'll do initial answer and then

15:08 ↗ see if amy wants to jump in i think for

15:11 ↗ the affordable housing we will likely be

15:13 ↗ looking at just the ductless

15:15 ↗ those and amy can correct me if i'm

15:17 ↗ wrong are usually in the five thousand

15:19 ↗ to eight thousand dollar range

15:23 ↗ the ducted are

15:25 ↗ closer to the 15 to 25 000 range and

15:29 ↗ especially because of the types of

15:32 ↗ homes we might be working with for the

15:34 ↗ low income component and the

15:37 ↗ the

15:39 ↗ imagine housing

15:40 ↗ infrastructure the the ducted would be

15:43 ↗ the appropriate heat pump

15:44 ↗ amy anything that you want to add you

15:46 ↗ have a lot more experience with this

15:48 ↗ program in other parts of the northwest

15:51 ↗ yeah stacey is exactly right i hope

15:53 ↗ everyone can hear me um ductless heat

15:55 ↗ pumps are a more common solution for

15:58 ↗ folks um the main reasons that you would

16:01 ↗ pursue a ducted central forced air

16:03 ↗ system is

16:04 ↗ if you were already um an owner of a

16:09 ↗ very

16:10 ↗ strong ducted system and it turns out

16:13 ↗ that not many people are even if you

16:15 ↗ have an existing ducted system it's

16:17 ↗ pretty leaky

16:19 ↗ the

16:20 ↗ best uh threshold for using a ducted

16:23 ↗ heat pump system is about six percent

16:27 ↗ and on average homes are about 25

16:30 ↗ leaky or rather um 25 retention of the

16:34 ↗ heat and so um

16:36 ↗ that way ductless pumps are sorry

16:39 ↗ there's a little bit of an echo so my

16:40 ↗ apologies

16:41 ↗ um ductless heat pumps are just a

16:43 ↗ general better solution for homes

16:46 ↗ regardless of the home configuration and

16:48 ↗ the existing heating fuel type

16:51 ↗ so um

16:53 ↗ also based on the budget constraints

16:56 ↗ using a ductless system to add to these

16:59 ↗ multi-family home retrofits would

17:01 ↗ probably be the better solution so yeah

17:04 ↗ those are the main differences with the

17:06 ↗ between the two technologies and why

17:07 ↗ ductless would be a preferred solution

17:11 ↗ that's great thank you very much uh you

17:13 ↗ anticipated my second question which was

17:14 ↗ how much is going to cost

17:16 ↗ now our proposal is to cover the cost of

17:18 ↗ installation only and not the heat pumps

17:20 ↗ themselves or is it both it would be a

17:22 ↗ hundred percent of the cost for the low

17:24 ↗ income all right um and what's

17:25 ↗ installation typically cost

17:27 ↗ um i think overall amy again correct if

17:30 ↗ i'm wrong i think the overall cost

17:32 ↗ um that we've been seeing for some of

17:33 ↗ the ducted systems is around that five

17:36 ↗ to ten thousand dollars

17:38 ↗ and so that's all in that would be yeah

17:40 ↗ we'd be hoping to fully cover that right

17:42 ↗ great and then uh final question is um

17:44 ↗ do you envision this as a

17:46 ↗ because i do the first year of a

17:47 ↗ multi-year program or and this is sort

17:49 ↗ of piloting figuring out what we're

17:51 ↗ doing and how we're going to do it and

17:53 ↗ working out kinks yeah absolutely that

17:55 ↗ is the hope the east side cities have

17:57 ↗ been talking quite a bit about

17:59 ↗ continuing this program on both sides to

18:02 ↗ add the the low income as well as the

18:04 ↗ market rate program as well as expanding

18:07 ↗ it we've been talking about

18:09 ↗ considering other energy efficiency

18:11 ↗ incentives

18:13 ↗ that we can provide to the community so

18:15 ↗ that is the hope to really scale up and

18:17 ↗ expand

18:18 ↗ i i really love the idea heat pumps

18:20 ↗ particularly after the last two days and

18:22 ↗ the fact that they give you the

18:23 ↗ the you know the heat in the winter and

18:25 ↗ the cooling in the in the summer and and

18:28 ↗ i like the idea also

18:30 ↗ very much of kind of focusing on um

18:32 ↗ at-risk elderly populations who really

18:35 ↗ do need to have things cool in the

18:37 ↗ cool in the summer and warm in the

18:39 ↗ winter so thank you for this yeah i

18:42 ↗ think the only thing i would add about

18:44 ↗ the cost is that uh stacy's number i

18:46 ↗ think is after the utility incentives so

18:49 ↗ um the cost on the invoice might be a

18:51 ↗ little bit higher than that um there's

18:53 ↗ also electrical costs so potentially

18:55 ↗ there may be some folks who will need

18:57 ↗ electrical upgrades to their panel in

18:59 ↗ order to accommodate the addition of a

19:00 ↗ heat pump so that at times can add one

19:04 ↗ to three thousand dollars which we would

19:05 ↗ hope to um

19:07 ↗ cover with this these funds but also

19:09 ↗ there have been other programs where we

19:10 ↗ have the resident take on that cost so

19:13 ↗ it's just a matter of program design

19:15 ↗ a program design decision and then

19:17 ↗ lastly if we're doing the installations

19:20 ↗ on multi-family

19:21 ↗ housing units the amount of refrigerant

19:24 ↗ line may be increased so

19:26 ↗ for ductless systems there's an indoor

19:27 ↗ unit and an outdoor unit connected by a

19:29 ↗ refrigerant line that carries the the

19:31 ↗ cooling solution between the two and if

19:33 ↗ you're in a multi-storey or in a strange

19:36 ↗ configuration you know there may be more

19:37 ↗ of that required and it's not an obscene

19:40 ↗ amount i think it's about 15 per extra

19:42 ↗ foot of refrigerant line but it's just

19:43 ↗ another way that the cost can

19:45 ↗ potentially increase for uh these low

19:48 ↗ income installations

19:51 ↗ great thank you

19:55 ↗ thank you i i have a few more questions

19:58 ↗ one is um as council president walsh

20:00 ↗ mentioned there is a lot of funding in

20:02 ↗ the sustainability fund and

20:05 ↗ and that is detailed in our staff report

20:07 ↗ i wondered

20:08 ↗ if you know what the um if you could

20:10 ↗ tell me what the

20:12 ↗ rate of accrual

20:13 ↗ is approximately in terms of how much

20:16 ↗ money per year is going into that fund

20:18 ↗ and expected to be going into that fund

20:20 ↗ over the next couple years

20:22 ↗ yeah i did

20:23 ↗ not have finance run that number because

20:25 ↗ we i believe are going to be in

20:27 ↗ discussions about that rate

20:30 ↗ so i'll see if

20:32 ↗ city administrator edwards could

20:34 ↗ address that uh council member members

20:37 ↗ of the committee good evening uh it's

20:39 ↗ about eight hundred thousand dollars a

20:41 ↗ year my recollection uh we are working

20:43 ↗ on the 2324 budget right now

20:46 ↗ our intent is to put forward a budget

20:48 ↗ that spends the entire amount annually

20:51 ↗ uh the council's made it very clear

20:52 ↗ you'd like to see that happen

20:54 ↗ we are uh i think fortunately passing

20:57 ↗ the the pandemic pause that we had on

20:59 ↗ all of this so we're moving forward with

21:01 ↗ that

21:02 ↗ i think we'll look to spend the fund

21:04 ↗ balance judiciously

21:06 ↗ there'll be monies allocated in 23

21:09 ↗ for this program additionally which the

21:11 ↗ council will consider as part of the the

21:13 ↗ annual budget process so uh i think both

21:16 ↗ the items you're hearing tonight i think

21:17 ↗ signal uh we're

21:19 ↗ in gear now to start tackling these

21:21 ↗ things programmatically

21:24 ↗ great thank you

21:25 ↗ um

21:26 ↗ second question is

21:28 ↗ there's other cities in the

21:30 ↗ program with

21:32 ↗ spark northwest are there other program

21:35 ↗ versions of this for specifically low

21:37 ↗ income housing or is that unique to our

21:40 ↗ approach

21:41 ↗ there are other cities within the east

21:43 ↗ side city group that are

21:45 ↗ that do have a low income housing

21:49 ↗ approach and then also heat pump

21:50 ↗ campaigns that are emerging across the

21:52 ↗ region seattle has had a very strong

21:55 ↗ focus on low income and particularly

21:57 ↗ they focused on oil conversion to heat

22:00 ↗ pumps since they're still dealing with a

22:01 ↗ lot of oil heating

22:03 ↗ king county is just starting to initiate

22:06 ↗ their program and they're planning to

22:08 ↗ focus

22:09 ↗ in locum areas

22:11 ↗ in particular and then i know amy is

22:13 ↗ working with other

22:14 ↗ cities across the state that are looking

22:16 ↗ to launch programs and i think some of

22:18 ↗ them as i understand are trying to

22:19 ↗ figure out exactly what their low income

22:22 ↗ or equity piece will be but she could

22:24 ↗ address that further

22:26 ↗ yeah there's there's a lot of different

22:28 ↗ configurations for what the equity

22:30 ↗ component can look like and we try to

22:32 ↗ tailor that to the community that we

22:33 ↗ work in so for the east side cities this

22:35 ↗ was

22:36 ↗ the

22:37 ↗ best

22:38 ↗ opportunity to actually make sure those

22:40 ↗ extra funds are spent because it's one

22:42 ↗ thing to fundraise for the equity

22:44 ↗ component but then actually making sure

22:45 ↗ that it's taken advantage of

22:47 ↗ for example in some southern oregon

22:49 ↗ campaigns we've been able to set aside

22:51 ↗ some buy down funds for tribal

22:53 ↗ participants exclusively so doing a

22:55 ↗ separate educational webinar for them

22:57 ↗ and ensuring that their housing

22:58 ↗ authority can distribute funds related

23:00 ↗ to the heat pump installation and

23:02 ↗ electrical upgrades

23:04 ↗ we

23:05 ↗ always try to have a program-wide

23:08 ↗ discount for for

23:09 ↗ all participants but the program will

23:11 ↗ target

23:12 ↗ outreach to seniors and manufactured

23:14 ↗ homeowners

23:15 ↗ like stacy mentioned there's a king

23:17 ↗ county rfp that's open right now that we

23:19 ↗ hope to submit by the end of the week

23:21 ↗ where they'll be paying like 90 to 100

23:23 ↗ percent cost coverage for up to a 150

23:26 ↗ installations as their goal so it's

23:28 ↗ quite significant and um

23:30 ↗ there's

23:31 ↗ many others that we're considering with

23:33 ↗ cities like stacy said where we're not

23:35 ↗ so sure

23:36 ↗ what the equity component may look like

23:37 ↗ for a number of reasons whether it's

23:39 ↗ lack of funding or just the

23:41 ↗ uh actual

23:43 ↗ uh target population that we want to

23:45 ↗ benefit so we want to be sure that those

23:47 ↗ things match up and that's just a small

23:49 ↗ small window into the

23:51 ↗ different program designs that we um

23:53 ↗ have considered

23:57 ↗ great thank you um and then last

24:00 ↗ question what are the plans for

24:02 ↗ following up on

24:04 ↗ how successful this is how we'll receive

24:06 ↗ customer satisfaction those sorts of

24:08 ↗ things

24:10 ↗ yeah that's a great question i know

24:11 ↗ spark northwest does track a lot of

24:13 ↗ metrics for this program i don't believe

24:16 ↗ that we've talked about any further

24:18 ↗ follow-up six months 12 months after the

24:21 ↗ fact but that's something we could

24:22 ↗ definitely build into the program um

24:26 ↗ yeah and i think the rest probably the

24:27 ↗ east side cities would be very

24:28 ↗ interested in doing that

24:31 ↗ yeah and i think i can provide some

24:32 ↗ examples of what we're uh potentially

24:35 ↗ considering um especially if you all

24:37 ↗ have

24:38 ↗ ideas on what would be most helpful for

24:39 ↗ you to justify funding this in the

24:42 ↗ future so um when we

24:44 ↗ follow up with folks about their cost

24:46 ↗ savings it's an estimated number you

24:47 ↗ know we don't um belabor them with

24:49 ↗ additional uh repeated surveys in the

24:52 ↗ future we just provide one at the end

24:53 ↗ that says you know how was your uh

24:55 ↗ experience with the installer did we

24:56 ↗ make the right selection

24:58 ↗ are you satisfied with your purchase and

25:00 ↗ most times people are very thrilled to

25:02 ↗ to share how much more comfortable they

25:03 ↗ are and how much money they've saved

25:05 ↗ for this particular program we have the

25:07 ↗ benefit of the shared resources of the

25:10 ↗ east side city so one example that we've

25:12 ↗ already been able to reap the benefit of

25:13 ↗ is the mcdonald miller hvac consultants

25:16 ↗ that have a very strong relationship

25:18 ↗ with the city of bellevue so they've

25:20 ↗ been able to make some connections

25:21 ↗ between imagine housing and puget sound

25:23 ↗ energy and i think that relationship can

25:26 ↗ continue so that maybe we may have more

25:27 ↗ accurate measurements for how much

25:30 ↗ energy people are spending um as well as

25:33 ↗ potential cost savings since i think

25:36 ↗ imagine has it amount imagine housing

25:38 ↗ has some kind of connection to either

25:40 ↗ bill assistance or just uh

25:42 ↗ an eye on uh what what folks are

25:45 ↗ spending their money on so um those are

25:48 ↗ a couple of ways where we can measure

25:49 ↗ the success of this program but uh

25:51 ↗ because it's a pilot we're pretty

25:53 ↗ open-minded to what success means i

25:54 ↗ think from the spark northwest

25:56 ↗ perspective having done this for so many

25:58 ↗ years a pilot is really an opportunity

26:00 ↗ to demonstrate creativity and i think

26:03 ↗ that exists in this program and we want

26:05 ↗ to be a model for the many other

26:06 ↗ municipalities that are hoping to

26:09 ↗ replicate this program or bring it to

26:11 ↗ their own city

26:12 ↗ so i think one measure of success that

26:14 ↗ isn't

26:15 ↗ as explicit is just the ability to

26:19 ↗ implement program ideas that are a

26:21 ↗ little bit newer and being able to

26:24 ↗ have the reflection on where things can

26:27 ↗ be improved for next iterations for not

26:29 ↗ only the east side cities but the many

26:30 ↗ other

26:31 ↗ regions that are keeping an eye on this

26:33 ↗ on this program

26:36 ↗ thank you amy so just to clarify a

26:38 ↗ little bit on that do you provide then a

26:42 ↗ report back to the city based on those

26:44 ↗ surveys and based on you know your

26:46 ↗ your take on how it went and your

26:48 ↗ lessons learned would you provide that

26:50 ↗ at the end or six months later

26:53 ↗ um currently there's a monthly report

26:55 ↗ that goes to the cities so that provides

26:58 ↗ an update on just the the progress of

27:00 ↗ the um

27:02 ↗ campaign but also like lessons learned

27:04 ↗ about different decisions that we've

27:05 ↗ made and also different conversations

27:06 ↗ we've been having about program design

27:08 ↗ so that alone has already provided a lot

27:11 ↗ of reflection for a repeated program and

27:14 ↗ then at the end there's a final report

27:15 ↗ that talks about the specific numbers so

27:17 ↗ how many people came to our workshops

27:20 ↗ how many folks within those workshops

27:22 ↗ actually moved on to a site assessment

27:24 ↗ and then were able to install

27:27 ↗ units i think that the distributor

27:29 ↗ relationship here will be very useful

27:31 ↗ similar to seattle they have a very

27:33 ↗ robust tracking system for

27:35 ↗ the

27:36 ↗ size

27:37 ↗ of the units that they install for

27:39 ↗ people the cost of those who got the

27:42 ↗ incentive and all of that so that

27:43 ↗ existing infrastructure will be really

27:45 ↗ useful for us to take advantage of to be

27:47 ↗ able to have a very

27:49 ↗ strong understanding of how this program

27:51 ↗ went by the numbers

27:57 ↗ okay great um so is that in the

27:59 ↗ distributor agreement already with it

28:02 ↗ yes we are working um on the distributor

28:05 ↗ agreement that will be coming to council

28:07 ↗ july 18th um

28:09 ↗ but we do have the reporting uh requests

28:12 ↗ or what will become requirements for the

28:15 ↗ for the distributor

28:16 ↗ okay great thank you that was my last

28:18 ↗ question do we have any

28:20 ↗ additional questions i'm not seeing any

28:22 ↗ so i will at this point um

28:26 ↗ call for public comment on this item and

28:30 ↗ i'll check in with the city clerk if

28:31 ↗ there's anyone on the line that might

28:33 ↗ wish to give public comment and if there

28:35 ↗ is i have some guidelines to read

28:39 ↗ council member hunt there is

28:41 ↗ no

28:42 ↗ members of the public in attendance at

28:43 ↗ this time okay thank you very much then

28:46 ↗ we will move into

28:47 ↗ committee recommendation on this item

28:50 ↗ would either of you like to kick us off

28:52 ↗ council president walsh yeah great

28:55 ↗ um completely support this i love this

28:58 ↗ this checks so

29:00 ↗ very many boxes

29:02 ↗ um

29:03 ↗ it helps us spend it down our budget it

29:06 ↗ helps with equity

29:08 ↗ it helps bring people up into a safer

29:12 ↗ environment with cooling

29:13 ↗ it helps with our climate direction

29:17 ↗ gosh if you could design five other

29:19 ↗ programs like this that check all the

29:21 ↗ various different boxes great i'm all

29:24 ↗ for it

29:25 ↗ generally i would say i'm

29:28 ↗ fine with the idea of starting with

29:31 ↗ imagine housing because it applies to

29:35 ↗ all of the various cities and i like

29:37 ↗ that for streamlining the program and

29:39 ↗ learning

29:40 ↗ but i am interested in really looking at

29:43 ↗ ways that we can expand this outside of

29:47 ↗ one individual

29:49 ↗ set of units

29:50 ↗ mostly because

29:52 ↗ that very small risk that if they were

29:54 ↗ to sell the place off or

29:57 ↗ there was an emergency that caused it to

30:00 ↗ have problems um it would be putting all

30:02 ↗ of our eggs into one basket and so i'd

30:04 ↗ look at

30:05 ↗ possibilities of other options for the

30:09 ↗ future but i can understand why a pilot

30:12 ↗ would be designed in this way and then

30:14 ↗ the other piece is

30:16 ↗ i would love to see this expanded and so

30:19 ↗ really

30:20 ↗ my question is

30:22 ↗ to the administration is do we have the

30:25 ↗ scope and the ability to do so both

30:28 ↗ financially and

30:30 ↗ programmatically and if so

30:33 ↗ i like the idea of expanding it but i

30:35 ↗ also recognize that we're about to come

30:38 ↗ into a budget season where

30:40 ↗ that could be a more appropriate

30:41 ↗ proposal so

30:46 ↗ thank you council president walsh

30:49 ↗ we're doing this this week um you know i

30:52 ↗ think part of our challenge is that we

30:54 ↗ have uh community members very impatient

30:57 ↗ on the climate action plan so do we go

31:00 ↗ do we go meaningful and deep on a few

31:02 ↗ programs or do we go thin and wide on

31:05 ↗ many programs and so i think our our

31:07 ↗ senses to stay

31:10 ↗ focused on the staff resources right now

31:12 ↗ we have

31:13 ↗ one full-time staff person uh i would

31:16 ↗ imagine you will hear

31:17 ↗ from the administration a proposal for

31:19 ↗ additional staff support for next year

31:22 ↗ so i think we just have to balance what

31:24 ↗ we can get done the council's made it

31:26 ↗ very clear don't put stuff in the budget

31:28 ↗ and not get it done so we want to put

31:30 ↗ stuff on the budget that we have the

31:32 ↗ staff resources other resources to get

31:34 ↗ done so

31:35 ↗ if this is successful we'll continue to

31:37 ↗ fund it but i think we want to be

31:39 ↗ mindful to the pressure we're getting

31:41 ↗ from the community that says we'd like

31:42 ↗ the entire climate action plan completed

31:44 ↗ next week please so that's difficult

31:48 ↗ yeah that sounds about right

31:50 ↗ next week sounds good um that was

31:52 ↗ exactly the response i was looking for

31:55 ↗ so that makes sense from an

31:56 ↗ affordability and staff resource thank

31:59 ↗ you

32:02 ↗ councilman marie thank you i i too think

32:05 ↗ this is a really great idea and it's a

32:07 ↗ great use of the sustainability fund

32:10 ↗ um

32:11 ↗ i think it's a you know i'm just going

32:13 ↗ to sound a lot like the council

32:14 ↗ president it does a lot of things that

32:16 ↗ we care a lot about it it helps out

32:18 ↗ those who are neediest in our community

32:21 ↗ it helps with reducing the

32:24 ↗ carbon footprint

32:26 ↗ and i also would like to see this expand

32:28 ↗ i think the number seems right to me

32:29 ↗ since we only have half a year left in

32:31 ↗ this half a year uh to spend it this

32:33 ↗ year so it seems right to me and but i

32:35 ↗ think uh there's going to be some great

32:36 ↗ learning and i'm a big fan of trying

32:39 ↗ stuff and and learning from it and i'm

32:41 ↗ i'm hopeful that we see

32:43 ↗ something coming forward next year that

32:46 ↗ expands on this program and is even

32:48 ↗ better because it's learned some lessons

32:50 ↗ from from this go around so so thank you

32:56 ↗ great thank you i have similar thoughts

32:58 ↗ to my fellow committee members i'm in

33:01 ↗ support i don't have any substantive

33:04 ↗ requests for

33:06 ↗ changes i i think the

33:09 ↗ information gathering the assessment

33:12 ↗ piece is really critical because this is

33:14 ↗ a pilot and to take the next step that

33:16 ↗ information will be very useful

33:19 ↗ so

33:21 ↗ i would

33:23 ↗ be interested to

33:25 ↗ see that information back and to make

33:26 ↗ sure that it does collect the

33:28 ↗ information we would need to expand the

33:30 ↗ program once that

33:32 ↗ decision is

33:34 ↗ uh comes before council again

33:36 ↗ um and so

33:39 ↗ one other thought though is that um

33:42 ↗ with a lot of our programs for

33:44 ↗ low-income residents especially if we do

33:46 ↗ expand this is just making sure that the

33:48 ↗ word gets out and that it gets out in

33:50 ↗ the um in a way that the people who need

33:52 ↗ this program most are aware of it and

33:54 ↗ able to access it 20 at 20 units that's

33:58 ↗ not very much and i understand that

34:00 ↗ that's appropriate for a pilot but just

34:02 ↗ to be mindful on the communication

34:03 ↗ strategy were we to expand and maybe we

34:06 ↗ can start thinking about that now

34:08 ↗ to make sure that the word is getting

34:09 ↗ out to those who will need this program

34:11 ↗ most and then that we are following up

34:12 ↗ to make sure that the program is um

34:15 ↗ is received in the way that we imagine

34:17 ↗ it will be is also i think important for

34:19 ↗ us

34:20 ↗ to

34:21 ↗ confirm directly from those residents

34:24 ↗ who um

34:25 ↗ who are

34:26 ↗ who receive these services um so those

34:29 ↗ would be my my considerations i think

34:31 ↗ the program is great i think it's great

34:33 ↗ that we can work with some other cities

34:35 ↗ it also seems like other cities are

34:36 ↗ considering this so be great to get the

34:38 ↗ word out and explain our

34:40 ↗ our

34:42 ↗ uh how it goes in our city to those

34:44 ↗ other cities so they can benefit from

34:46 ↗ that and

34:47 ↗ potentially

34:49 ↗ use that to start their own programs

34:51 ↗ and yeah i think this is a great

34:54 ↗ example of the city

34:57 ↗ falling through on our commitments in

34:59 ↗ the climate action plan and taking the

35:01 ↗ lead and i appreciate it a lot and no

35:03 ↗ further changes that i'd say at this

35:05 ↗ point

35:10 ↗ so i think we can

35:15 ↗ direction needed we can

35:17 ↗ if it's helpful we can vote to um put

35:20 ↗ this forward and then i also wondered if

35:21 ↗ it would be helpful to

35:23 ↗ uh make a suggestion of where on the

35:26 ↗ agenda so whether um

35:28 ↗ whether it's on consent or a regular

35:30 ↗ business

35:34 ↗ recommendation for consent

35:36 ↗ okay so um

35:38 ↗ are we comfortable with recommending

35:40 ↗ that this go to the consent calendar for

35:42 ↗ council councilman ray

35:44 ↗ yeah just really quickly i think that's

35:45 ↗ absolutely appropriate and it would be

35:47 ↗ very good because

35:50 ↗ this is an important thing we're doing

35:51 ↗ and client event action is important so

35:54 ↗ maybe just a little bit more on the

35:56 ↗ committee report during committee

35:57 ↗ reports to say this is you know this is

35:59 ↗ what we talked about this is what it is

36:00 ↗ and this is why we think it's such a

36:02 ↗ good idea and not that you wouldn't do

36:03 ↗ that but uh it's such a super idea

36:07 ↗ yes great point and i will definitely do

36:09 ↗ that

36:10 ↗ anything further

36:11 ↗ okay um then

36:13 ↗ all those in favor of advancing this um

36:16 ↗ for consideration of the

36:18 ↗ regular council and that this be on the

36:21 ↗ of the full council and let this be on

36:23 ↗ the consent calendar signify by saying

36:26 ↗ aye

36:27 ↗ aye

36:28 ↗ none opposed so that

36:30 ↗ that um passes with that recommendation

36:32 ↗ from the committee

36:34 ↗ great thank you very much and thank you

36:36 ↗ so much for amy uh for joining us

36:38 ↗ tonight and sharing all that information

36:43 ↗ all right so i um do you have everything

36:46 ↗ you need on that item we can move to the

36:47 ↗ next all right then we will move to the

36:49 ↗ second and final item on our agenda this

36:51 ↗ evening which is id 1188

36:53 ↗ clean buildings initiative

37:01 ↗ great well thank you again

37:03 ↗ for this presentation i'm joined by jen

37:06 ↗ davis hayes will be tag teaming a bit of

37:08 ↗ the presentation this evening

37:11 ↗ so tonight we are here requesting

37:13 ↗ again another amendment to the

37:15 ↗ sustainability fund for a hundred

37:17 ↗ thousand dollars for an issaquah clean

37:19 ↗ buildings initiative

37:23 ↗ as shared in the earlier presentation

37:25 ↗ buildings are one of the most rapidly

37:27 ↗ growing sources of greenhouse gas

37:29 ↗ emissions in washington state and

37:31 ↗ working to reduce greenhouse gas

37:33 ↗ emissions in existing buildings and

37:34 ↗ homes is often a challenging area

37:37 ↗ the administration is thinking this

37:39 ↗ appropriation to fund an issaquah clean

37:42 ↗ building initiative

37:43 ↗ the investment will help advance our

37:45 ↗ progress towards the climate action plan

37:47 ↗ target of reducing energy use in

37:49 ↗ existing buildings

37:52 ↗ jen i will pass it over to you to

37:54 ↗ provide a bit of history on the clean

37:56 ↗ buildings act

38:01 ↗ i got a mute sorry about that good

38:04 ↗ evening council members my name is jen

38:06 ↗ davis hayes economic development manager

38:08 ↗ and i would love to have been there

38:10 ↗ tonight but i am without transportation

38:12 ↗ so i'm joining you uh to talk about this

38:14 ↗ amazing program that stacey uh has put

38:16 ↗ together and we are working very closely

38:18 ↗ with her with economic development so

38:21 ↗ as she mentioned energy use in existing

38:24 ↗ businesses and homes is the largest

38:25 ↗ greenhouse gas contributor in issaquah

38:28 ↗ so so the solution to cutting building

38:30 ↗ emissions lies in energy efficiency

38:33 ↗ that's the fastest and cheapest way to

38:34 ↗ cut carbon emissions and other harmful

38:37 ↗ pollution

38:38 ↗ so the state's clean building

38:39 ↗ performance standard is designed to

38:41 ↗ secure this energy efficiency

38:43 ↗ opportunity they passed this clean

38:46 ↗ building standards in 2019

38:48 ↗ and it

38:49 ↗ has requirements for energy efficiency

38:52 ↗ for covered commercial buildings is what

38:54 ↗ they call them for anything that is 50

38:57 ↗ 000 square feet or above so this

38:59 ↗ includes

39:01 ↗ private buildings municipal public

39:03 ↗ buildings non-profits and places of

39:06 ↗ worship

39:07 ↗ that the law does not cover multi-family

39:10 ↗ hotels or places of residency

39:13 ↗ so the timeline for compliance uh varies

39:16 ↗ by building size with reporting

39:18 ↗ requirements in advance

39:20 ↗ so

39:21 ↗ while they may need to be so that means

39:23 ↗ basically they may

39:25 ↗ need to meet that deadline in 2026 they

39:28 ↗ have to actually report that prior

39:30 ↗ um the uh and in addition for the

39:33 ↗ reporting they need to report to the

39:35 ↗ state regularly even if they are in

39:36 ↗ compliance and we you know we think

39:38 ↗ there's some buildings in this one that

39:39 ↗ may already be there or close to there

39:42 ↗ penalties do exist depending on the size

39:44 ↗ of the building and how much out of

39:47 ↗ compliance they are whether it's with

39:49 ↗ reporting or the energy efficiency

39:52 ↗ in 2022 the legislative session uh they

39:56 ↗ amended to include buildings 20 000 or

39:59 ↗ greater as well as multi-family so the

40:02 ↗ rules that they're working for these

40:04 ↗ requirements are underway and expected

40:06 ↗ to be completed

40:07 ↗ in december of of 2023

40:12 ↗ next slide thank you

40:14 ↗ so along with the passage of these

40:16 ↗ standards the state

40:17 ↗ also authorized 75 million dollars for

40:20 ↗ energy

40:21 ↗ incentives for early adopters of the

40:23 ↗ clean building standards

40:25 ↗ and

40:26 ↗ these funds are available for those that

40:28 ↗ that must be in compliance with the

40:30 ↗ clean building standards but also those

40:32 ↗ without those requirements such as a

40:34 ↗ multi-family

40:35 ↗ um so

40:36 ↗ you know

40:37 ↗ working in economic development people

40:39 ↗ often ask us for incentives and i see

40:41 ↗ this uh this program is a real win-win

40:45 ↗ for not only our our commercial property

40:47 ↗ owners but also our environment and um

40:50 ↗ our businesses long in the long run

40:52 ↗ the funds for this incentive are uh on a

40:56 ↗ first-come first-served basis until

40:58 ↗ they're gone so

40:59 ↗ you know some cities already start the

41:01 ↗ program to take advantage of these

41:03 ↗ opportunities um and there's other

41:05 ↗ programs out there that are looking at

41:07 ↗ how to help

41:09 ↗ commercial buildings meet these

41:11 ↗ including king county has a program

41:13 ↗ called sea pacer

41:15 ↗ it's a loan program where you pay back

41:17 ↗ the loan based on your energy savings

41:19 ↗ and

41:20 ↗ puget sound energy actually is

41:22 ↗ initiating a clean building's

41:24 ↗ accelerator program and that's really

41:26 ↗ more focused on building the long-term

41:29 ↗ capacity

41:30 ↗ of compliance with these standards so

41:32 ↗ they're going to form some cohorts of

41:34 ↗ building owners and managers

41:36 ↗ and

41:37 ↗ you know help them understand what the

41:39 ↗ compliance is required and what process

41:41 ↗ for reporting ongoing so it's something

41:43 ↗ that's completely complementary to what

41:45 ↗ we're going to be talking about tonight

41:47 ↗ and we already are talking about cross

41:49 ↗ promotional and referrals to each

41:51 ↗ program so i'm going to pass it on to

41:53 ↗ stacy to unveil the program details

41:56 ↗ great thanks jen

41:58 ↗ great so the funding we are requesting

42:01 ↗ this evening is to support an 18-month

42:03 ↗ initial program

42:05 ↗ with the possibility for expansion

42:07 ↗ in order to support our businesses and

42:10 ↗ energy efficiency upgrades and take

42:11 ↗ available of the state incentives the

42:14 ↗ city is proposing to develop a program

42:16 ↗ that's modeled after the city of

42:17 ↗ bellevue's successful relationship and

42:19 ↗ program that they've had with mcdonald

42:21 ↗ miller

42:22 ↗ the city of issaquah would partner with

42:24 ↗ a service provider to walk through the

42:26 ↗ requirements of the clean building

42:28 ↗ standards support access to incentives

42:30 ↗ and loans and complete the mandatory

42:32 ↗ reporting for those working to come into

42:34 ↗ compliance as well as for those that are

42:36 ↗ already in compliance

42:39 ↗ following broad and individual outreach

42:41 ↗ the city and service provider would

42:42 ↗ cover the following steps

42:44 ↗ we would do the benchmarking for the

42:46 ↗ buildings which determines the current

42:48 ↗ energy use in the building

42:50 ↗ we would compare the current energy use

42:52 ↗ to the target that is needed to come

42:54 ↗ into compliance

42:55 ↗ we would complete a scoping assessment

42:57 ↗ to identify the improvements that are

42:59 ↗ needed in the building to come into

43:00 ↗ compliance

43:02 ↗ incentives and loan information would be

43:04 ↗ be provided and where appropriate

43:07 ↗ support for applying for those

43:10 ↗ and then the building owner and the

43:11 ↗ service provider would work together to

43:14 ↗ cover and complete the requirements or

43:16 ↗ excuse me the improvements

43:18 ↗ the city and service provider would

43:21 ↗ support compliance reporting

43:23 ↗ and other needs that are

43:25 ↗ necessary to

43:27 ↗ complete the compliance

43:29 ↗ based on information that we retain from

43:31 ↗ the department of commerce as well as

43:33 ↗ further staff review we're estimating

43:35 ↗ there are around 50 to 80 buildings in

43:38 ↗ issaquah that meet the threshold for

43:39 ↗ reporting to the state

43:42 ↗ under the current law and an additional

43:44 ↗ 70 to 80 buildings that may be eligible

43:47 ↗ for energy efficiency upgrade incentives

43:50 ↗ and loans we do need to complete further

43:52 ↗ analysis of the data

43:57 ↗ so why are we interested in expanding

43:59 ↗ this program to issaquah if compliance

44:02 ↗ is required under state law

44:04 ↗ this program has the opportunity to

44:06 ↗ provide direct marketing outreach and

44:08 ↗ support early compliance for all

44:10 ↗ building types

44:12 ↗ it can also

44:14 ↗ support reducing the number of buildings

44:16 ↗ that may choose not to comply and

44:18 ↗ instead pay penalties

44:20 ↗ there's an opportunity to exceed

44:22 ↗ compliance requirements

44:24 ↗ as well as to go above and beyond

44:26 ↗ by working with interested businesses on

44:29 ↗ decarbonization or clean energy

44:31 ↗ strategies

44:32 ↗ which may not be considered if building

44:35 ↗ owners and managers choose to go through

44:37 ↗ this program on their own

44:39 ↗ this program will also provide support

44:41 ↗ for our own municipal buildings as well

44:43 ↗ as other public buildings non-profit

44:45 ↗ entities that might com need to come

44:48 ↗ come into compliance but may lack the

44:50 ↗ resources to do so

44:52 ↗ it supports our community and taking

44:54 ↗ advantage of limited incentives and loan

44:56 ↗ programs for energy efficiency upgrades

45:00 ↗ it demonstrates that the city is a

45:01 ↗ partner with the public as well as

45:03 ↗ private entities and meeting our climate

45:05 ↗ action targets

45:09 ↗ we did have an opportunity to meet with

45:11 ↗ both with the environmental board as

45:13 ↗ well as vision partners and the economic

45:15 ↗ vitality commission about this program

45:18 ↗ vision partners in the economic vitality

45:20 ↗ commission were supportive

45:22 ↗ of advancing this program

45:25 ↗ the environmental board

45:26 ↗ discussed in particular whether the city

45:29 ↗ should require above and beyond

45:32 ↗ aspect to this program to be a

45:34 ↗ participant

45:35 ↗ they did not feel that that was

45:36 ↗ necessary they felt it's an opportunity

45:39 ↗ to really engage businesses and building

45:41 ↗ owners in icap implementation and

45:43 ↗ support efforts to reduce greenhouse gas

45:45 ↗ emissions

45:46 ↗ they were concerned about

45:48 ↗ by adding additional barriers to the

45:50 ↗ program we may not maximize involvement

45:53 ↗ they noted that building owners are

45:55 ↗ already needing to invest significant

45:56 ↗ funds and energy efficiency upgrades

45:59 ↗ and any additional requirements would

46:00 ↗ make it more expensive for their

46:02 ↗ participation

46:03 ↗ and then they also noted that many

46:07 ↗ buildings are already exceeding the

46:09 ↗ energy efficiency standards by being a

46:10 ↗ participant in this program as has been

46:13 ↗ demonstrated in bellevue

46:16 ↗ board members also had some ideas about

46:18 ↗ how to make this program more unique to

46:20 ↗ issaquah such as working with particular

46:22 ↗ building owners such as the school

46:24 ↗ district on advancing opportunities for

46:26 ↗ clean energy

46:27 ↗ and those are opportunities that we'll

46:29 ↗ explore with a service provider if if

46:31 ↗ this program's supported

46:35 ↗ so tonight we're asking

46:37 ↗ whether there is support to advance this

46:40 ↗ request to counsel whether there is

46:43 ↗ support but request for modification

46:46 ↗ if there is support to

46:48 ↗ make modifications in return for further

46:50 ↗ discussion

46:52 ↗ or if the committee does not support

46:54 ↗ advancement of this request

46:57 ↗ the administration's recommendation is

47:00 ↗ that the committee

47:02 ↗ recommends the budget amendment to the

47:03 ↗ sustainability fund for a hundred

47:05 ↗ thousand dollars to implement the clean

47:07 ↗ buildings initiative

47:11 ↗ if supported

47:12 ↗ tonight we will move this proposal to

47:14 ↗ council in july

47:16 ↗ we will move forward our contracting

47:19 ↗ with the service provider this summer

47:21 ↗ and then initiate the program in early

47:24 ↗ fall

47:25 ↗ after the towards the end of the

47:26 ↗ 18-month program we will do evaluation

47:30 ↗ and determine whether or not the program

47:32 ↗ should continue

47:37 ↗ so the direction needed tonight is

47:39 ↗ whether we should

47:41 ↗ proceed

47:42 ↗ with bringing the additional

47:43 ↗ appropriation request

47:45 ↗ of a hundred thousand dollars from the

47:47 ↗ sustainability fund to council

47:52 ↗ there

47:55 ↗ councilmember ray

47:57 ↗ thank you councilmember hunt

47:58 ↗ um on the proposal the clean buildings

48:01 ↗ slide where you've got the

48:03 ↗ series of seven boxes

48:05 ↗ um

48:06 ↗ i should probably know this but i don't

48:08 ↗ so the service provider is the co per

48:11 ↗ the entity that we would contract with

48:13 ↗ that's correct so where it says down at

48:15 ↗ the bottom it says city funding supports

48:17 ↗ and it

48:18 ↗ it points to the two boxes

48:21 ↗ but we're really kind of

48:22 ↗ providing support for all of them

48:24 ↗ because we're paying for the service

48:25 ↗ provider we would put funding into the

48:28 ↗ outreach component of the program and

48:30 ↗ then helping to supplement the

48:33 ↗ scoping assessments the service provider

48:36 ↗ would actually cover the cost of

48:38 ↗ benchmarking

48:40 ↗ and

48:40 ↗ submitting paperwork and all of those

48:43 ↗ aspects and then the building owner

48:45 ↗ would be paying for the actual

48:46 ↗ improvement yeah okay and so and then

48:48 ↗ the paper this the paperwork at the end

48:50 ↗ that submission that's the service

48:52 ↗ provider that they're doing under our

48:53 ↗ contract

48:54 ↗ so

48:56 ↗ you're going to say something

48:58 ↗ uh under our contract boat the city

49:00 ↗ would not be paying for that aspect of

49:02 ↗ work okay um so does a hundred thousand

49:05 ↗ dollars include our outreach activities

49:08 ↗ and the scoping assessment or is that

49:10 ↗ um

49:11 ↗ something in addition to using staff

49:14 ↗ resources or

49:15 ↗ how does that break down yeah the

49:17 ↗ hundred thousand dollars would cover a

49:19 ↗ portion uh would cover the city's full

49:22 ↗ contribution to outreach

49:24 ↗ we estimate around five thousand to ten

49:26 ↗ thousand is about what is needed um the

49:29 ↗ service provider would also be covering

49:31 ↗ costs for outreach and marketing

49:33 ↗ and then it would cover

49:35 ↗ the cost of scoping assessments

49:38 ↗ we estimated for

49:41 ↗ around

49:42 ↗ 25 to 30 buildings that we'd be able to

49:44 ↗ cover with those costs

49:46 ↗ and then there'll be some staff time on

49:48 ↗ top of it but that would be

49:50 ↗ all of the hundred thousand dollars

49:51 ↗ would go just towards those two items

49:54 ↗ just the outreach in the scoping the

49:56 ↗ origin scoping um that's correct and

49:58 ↗ then the service provider is covering

50:00 ↗ the costs for the other items without

50:03 ↗ payment from the city okay i'm being

50:05 ↗ slow tonight i'm sorry um

50:07 ↗ is the uh so is it who's paying the

50:10 ↗ service provider they're doing that in

50:12 ↗ kind

50:13 ↗ because ultimately they uh hope to

50:17 ↗ win the contracts for doing some of the

50:19 ↗ improvements

50:21 ↗ got it

50:22 ↗ okay that makes sense

50:23 ↗ this we're not contracting with a

50:25 ↗ service provider they're a completely

50:26 ↗ external entity they're doing this

50:28 ↗ because they're looking for the

50:29 ↗ long-term benefit from it we are going

50:31 ↗ to contract with someone to help with

50:33 ↗ outreach and the scoping correct okay

50:35 ↗ and it's an 18-month service contract

50:38 ↗ with some

50:39 ↗ entity that will do those two

50:41 ↗ two things for us yes okay correct makes

50:44 ↗ perfect sense i got it now thank you yes

50:50 ↗ council president walsh

50:51 ↗ thanks

50:53 ↗ um

50:55 ↗ so if

50:56 ↗ what we're paying for is outreach and

51:00 ↗ the assessment scoping

51:02 ↗ is it possible

51:04 ↗ that

51:04 ↗ a business is going to come into this

51:06 ↗ and they're going to get their benchmark

51:08 ↗ and they're going to get an assessment

51:10 ↗ and then they're not going to make the

51:13 ↗ actual

51:14 ↗ energy improvements

51:16 ↗ that is a potential um i think what the

51:18 ↗ service provider will show is the

51:21 ↗ benefit payback from those

51:24 ↗ energy assessment improvements

51:27 ↗ as well as

51:29 ↗ education around the penalties

51:34 ↗ okay but we're doing this in advance of

51:37 ↗ when the penalties would come into

51:39 ↗ effect because we're trying to get early

51:41 ↗ adopter status so yes okay

51:44 ↗ um

51:47 ↗ so

51:49 ↗ let's see you already answered how many

51:50 ↗ buildings that would cover um when you

51:53 ↗ talked about the school district at the

51:55 ↗ end you hadn't mentioned that that was

51:56 ↗ one of the buildings that would

51:59 ↗ qualify

52:01 ↗ does do the school buildings because

52:04 ↗ they're over 50 000 square feet are they

52:06 ↗ required to come into compliance with

52:08 ↗ the same

52:09 ↗ time frame that's correct yes they are

52:12 ↗ um i think i

52:14 ↗ might have been a little confusing to

52:15 ↗ bring in that point it was some

52:16 ↗ suggestions from the environmental board

52:18 ↗ maybe just to think about unique

52:20 ↗ opportunities of working with the school

52:22 ↗ direct district and trying to encourage

52:24 ↗ them to go further and thinking about

52:26 ↗ renewable energy or other aspects but

52:29 ↗ yes they are

52:31 ↗ i can't remember how many of their

52:32 ↗ buildings are required to be in

52:34 ↗ compliance but it's a number of them um

52:36 ↗ that are triggered by the state law

52:38 ↗ and obviously we're only looking at the

52:40 ↗ school district buildings that are

52:42 ↗ within the city of issaquah correct yeah

52:44 ↗ yes um

52:47 ↗ okay and how would buildings be chosen

52:50 ↗ for this program considering it's

52:52 ↗ limited is it based on impact or first

52:55 ↗ come first served is there a lottery

52:58 ↗ yeah um i think there is an opportunity

53:01 ↗ depending on interest there's there's an

53:02 ↗ opportunity to set some prioritization

53:04 ↗ of buildings um where we could be

53:06 ↗ working first with municipal buildings

53:09 ↗ and then with those anticipated to be

53:11 ↗ furthest from compliance

53:14 ↗ and then those that are 50 000 and

53:16 ↗ greater and then opening it up to others

53:19 ↗ i

53:19 ↗ my understanding from the bellevue

53:21 ↗ program that there hasn't been

53:23 ↗ such a flood of interest where their

53:25 ↗ service provider is overwhelmed with

53:28 ↗ requests they've been able to work with

53:30 ↗ all of the interested building owners or

53:32 ↗ stagger out

53:34 ↗ the the work with them to a point that

53:37 ↗ was satisfying

53:38 ↗ but we could definitely set some

53:39 ↗ prioritization

53:41 ↗ standards if we expect

53:43 ↗ a great amount of interest in the first

53:45 ↗ couple months

53:46 ↗ okay and then you've also mentioned the

53:49 ↗ municipal buildings so in an email that

53:52 ↗ council member hunt sent you had replied

53:55 ↗ and said well

53:57 ↗ municipal buildings yes they're going to

53:59 ↗ have to come into compliance but we

54:00 ↗ wouldn't actually

54:02 ↗ be taking any of this money

54:04 ↗ for those assessments because did you

54:06 ↗ say that's covered by department of

54:08 ↗ commerce yeah my understand this is just

54:10 ↗ information i learned this afternoon is

54:13 ↗ the

54:14 ↗ scoping assessment that would be done

54:17 ↗ with

54:17 ↗ the municipal buildings is actually

54:20 ↗ covered through department of commerce's

54:22 ↗ esco program

54:24 ↗ energy service

54:27 ↗ provider program

54:28 ↗ so we would not need to pay for that it

54:30 ↗ would already be covered we were not

54:32 ↗ intending for

54:34 ↗ these funds to be applied towards in the

54:37 ↗ actual improvements because those would

54:39 ↗ likely

54:40 ↗ use up that funding very quickly

54:43 ↗ so i don't actually anticipate any of

54:45 ↗ this funding would need to be needed for

54:46 ↗ municipal pro municipal buildings

54:49 ↗ because of that other opportunity with

54:50 ↗ commerce

54:52 ↗ okay but then there's obviously if we

54:54 ↗ run the assessment and we get a sense of

54:57 ↗ what the municipal needs are we will

54:59 ↗ have a budget ask not only because

55:01 ↗ that's something that our community

55:03 ↗ would want but because at a certain date

55:05 ↗ we will have to come into compliance

55:07 ↗ absolutely yeah okay those are my

55:09 ↗ questions thanks

55:13 ↗ councilmember marie i just did a quick

55:14 ↗ follow-up and it was just kind of

55:16 ↗ triggered by council president walsh's

55:18 ↗ comment you talked about the number of

55:19 ↗ buildings but because we're staggering

55:21 ↗ in the due date for them based on the

55:24 ↗ size how many buildings over 220 000

55:27 ↗ square feet do we have it down roughly

55:29 ↗ that is a good question and jen i know

55:31 ↗ did a further scrub of the data um i

55:35 ↗ don't know if it was just a small

55:37 ↗ handful

55:39 ↗ that were over that 220. i do have the

55:41 ↗ spreadsheet pulled up but um

55:44 ↗ worried i'll mess up the presentation

55:45 ↗ jen might be able to look at that very

55:47 ↗ quickly

55:48 ↗ but that's something we could also

55:49 ↗ consider in the prioritization is that

55:52 ↗ stay your deadline for when compliance

55:54 ↗ is required if that was of interest yeah

55:56 ↗ i used to you know it's hard to for me

55:58 ↗ to even

56:00 ↗ guess what you know i'm guessing like

56:02 ↗ the new costco buildings are probably

56:03 ↗ over 220

56:04 ↗ but you know was his target um right you

56:07 ↗ know so i just i don't even

56:09 ↗ in my mind i can't even know what that

56:11 ↗ looks like yeah

56:14 ↗ i don't know jen if you're able to pull

56:15 ↗ that up

56:20 ↗ yeah just let me sort um you know the

56:24 ↗ when i think about some large buildings

56:25 ↗ um

56:27 ↗ so target is 115 according to king

56:30 ↗ county records 115 000 so we're not

56:33 ↗ looking at over 220 lows is a little bit

56:35 ↗ bigger than that

56:36 ↗ um

56:37 ↗ the the 90 east buildings which are over

56:41 ↗ by siemens which costco and a microsoft

56:44 ↗ lease those are over 220 so those are pr

56:48 ↗ those are probably our largest buildings

56:49 ↗ the ones that would cover under and then

56:52 ↗ i don't know right off hand that what

56:53 ↗ the new costco one is that they're

56:54 ↗ building right now so i'm assuming that

56:56 ↗ they would um you know be building to

56:58 ↗ the standards um and would then just

57:01 ↗ need to to report rather than uh comply

57:04 ↗ by that time yeah no that's really

57:06 ↗ helpful thanks

57:09 ↗ okay

57:10 ↗ um okay i had some questions there's a

57:13 ↗ similar vein to council member ray's

57:16 ↗ questions about

57:17 ↗ how this works um so

57:20 ↗ if if we were not to do this program

57:24 ↗ and the cert what would the uh workflow

57:27 ↗ look like with the service provider i

57:28 ↗ imagine they would still work with a

57:30 ↗ business to do this um benchmarking and

57:34 ↗ so would

57:35 ↗ what's the

57:36 ↗ um alternative for a business if we

57:39 ↗ weren't to do this and what's the cost

57:41 ↗ difference

57:43 ↗ um

57:44 ↗ yeah that's a great question the first

57:46 ↗ part i can answer i think businesses

57:48 ↗ would be going through this process

57:50 ↗ themselves many of them probably are

57:53 ↗ sorry not businesses but building owners

57:55 ↗ many of them may not be aware of the

57:57 ↗ state standard they may have gotten a

57:58 ↗ letter from department of commerce don't

58:00 ↗ know how it applies to them

58:03 ↗ so may end up missing the deadline

58:04 ↗ completely and not or and or not taking

58:08 ↗ advantage of incentive dollars

58:10 ↗ they would have to go through this

58:11 ↗ process on their own and work with their

58:14 ↗ own service provider or find a service

58:16 ↗ provider to do this work so i anticipate

58:19 ↗ it would take much longer they'll miss

58:21 ↗ opportunities for incentives

58:23 ↗ and probably not

58:25 ↗ be in a good position to exceed those

58:27 ↗ standards where if we

58:30 ↗ with the service provider that we're

58:31 ↗ working with if we can get in early

58:34 ↗ talk about other advantages of exceeding

58:37 ↗ standards bringing in other

58:39 ↗ potential components to the program to

58:42 ↗ talk to them about further greenhouse

58:44 ↗ gas reductions there's a great

58:46 ↗ opportunity that we can get them to go

58:47 ↗ above and beyond just through this

58:49 ↗ partnership

58:53 ↗ okay and so we know the cost to

58:56 ↗ us of participating in this program and

58:58 ↗ the service provider in this case pays

59:01 ↗ those

59:02 ↗ steps would the service providers still

59:04 ↗ pay for those steps if the if the city

59:07 ↗ were not to fund the

59:09 ↗ partial outreach and the scoping

59:11 ↗ assessment yeah that's a great question

59:13 ↗ i would probably need to check in with

59:14 ↗ them i would anticipate that the

59:16 ↗ building owner would need to cover the

59:18 ↗ cost of the service provider for

59:21 ↗ the benchmarking comparison

59:23 ↗ obviously the scoping

59:25 ↗ that that is not necessarily a service

59:27 ↗ that would be provided that was

59:29 ↗ something that was really unique to the

59:30 ↗ bellevue program and another advantage

59:33 ↗ of participating in this program

59:35 ↗ but that's something i could reach out

59:37 ↗ to a couple service providers and and

59:39 ↗ check on that

59:41 ↗ yeah i think

59:42 ↗ the question would be also what's the

59:45 ↗ cost difference if so if you could reach

59:47 ↗ out and

59:48 ↗ figure that out that would help me

59:50 ↗ sort of understand what's the

59:53 ↗ benefit

59:54 ↗ so and i understand now that municipal

59:57 ↗ buildings not covered in a different

59:59 ↗ program so i think that's also not a

1:00:01 ↗ benefit of this program anymore because

1:00:05 ↗ that's already covered and that would be

1:00:06 ↗ covered there's no cost difference to

1:00:08 ↗ whether we do this program or not for

1:00:09 ↗ that municipal building issue i would

1:00:12 ↗ say the opportunity here is that we

1:00:13 ↗ would have a service provider that would

1:00:15 ↗ work through this process with us

1:00:19 ↗ to come into compliance while the actual

1:00:22 ↗ cost of the scoping assessment might be

1:00:24 ↗ covered we don't necessarily have a

1:00:27 ↗ service provider that will take us

1:00:28 ↗ through this step by step and ensure

1:00:30 ↗ that we're in alignment

1:00:33 ↗ what the commerce dollars as i

1:00:34 ↗ understand it we'll do is cover that

1:00:36 ↗ cost of the scoping assessment so that's

1:00:39 ↗ not coming out of our hundred thousand

1:00:44 ↗ okay so i i think i think similarly it

1:00:47 ↗ would be good to know what's the benefit

1:00:49 ↗ then to the city versus doing this a

1:00:51 ↗ different way because we would have we

1:00:53 ↗ have to come into compliance as well um

1:00:56 ↗ we would have to work with a service

1:00:57 ↗ provider

1:00:59 ↗ would there be a cost

1:01:00 ↗ difference

1:01:02 ↗ just trying to trying to understand what

1:01:04 ↗ is actually the cost difference would be

1:01:06 ↗ helpful for me

1:01:07 ↗ um councilmember hunt

1:01:09 ↗ if i may i've actually worked in a city

1:01:12 ↗ that's had this requirement and a city

1:01:14 ↗ that i worked in this was not a state

1:01:16 ↗ requirement it was a local requirement

1:01:19 ↗ and so

1:01:20 ↗ i have i can tell you what the

1:01:21 ↗ experience was with property owners is

1:01:23 ↗ that there is a percentage that are

1:01:25 ↗ happy to do this there's other

1:01:27 ↗ percentage that have no interest in

1:01:29 ↗ doing this and so what we have presented

1:01:32 ↗ for you here in isqua is a way to

1:01:36 ↗ kind of take them by the hand and make

1:01:38 ↗ this as easy as possible that they see

1:01:40 ↗ through a good service provider that

1:01:42 ↗ this is something that the cost

1:01:43 ↗ associated can be paid back through

1:01:45 ↗ saving energy savings and to get

1:01:47 ↗ compliance so the city's is proposing to

1:01:50 ↗ invest the dollars we are tonight to get

1:01:53 ↗ compliance to reduce the carbon

1:01:55 ↗ emissions if we were to do nothing else

1:01:57 ↗ and a business owner would see a flyer

1:02:00 ↗ or not see a flyer

1:02:02 ↗ then it may not ever happen

1:02:04 ↗ the state of washington uh at some point

1:02:07 ↗ is going to have to go through

1:02:08 ↗ compliance and my guess is the number of

1:02:11 ↗ compliance officials that are available

1:02:13 ↗ in the state of washington to work on

1:02:14 ↗ this project are probably limited

1:02:16 ↗ so what we're saying as a community

1:02:18 ↗ through our climate action plan is this

1:02:20 ↗ is very important and we're willing to

1:02:22 ↗ put our money where our convictions are

1:02:24 ↗ so that in a relatively hopefully short

1:02:26 ↗ period of time we'll get high compliance

1:02:28 ↗ by making it very easy for issaquah

1:02:31 ↗ businesses to do this if you're located

1:02:33 ↗ in some other community um it would not

1:02:35 ↗ be easy you would have difficulty

1:02:37 ↗ because we

1:02:38 ↗ in evanston you know had businesses even

1:02:41 ↗ after we had had

1:02:43 ↗ programs and webinars and all of that

1:02:46 ↗ still saying i don't understand i can't

1:02:48 ↗ figure this out and so what we didn't do

1:02:50 ↗ in evanston is have this third party the

1:02:52 ↗ city staff had to do

1:02:54 ↗ all of this so by having that third

1:02:56 ↗ party available to do this we suspect

1:02:58 ↗ will be quicker but what we get out of

1:03:00 ↗ this

1:03:01 ↗ is fewer carbon emissions that's what we

1:03:03 ↗ get out of this investment

1:03:06 ↗ because these buildings even though

1:03:08 ↗ there's a state requirement may never do

1:03:10 ↗ it

1:03:16 ↗ okay thank you that that's also helpful

1:03:19 ↗ um and thank you for sharing the um

1:03:21 ↗ other city experience i think that's

1:03:23 ↗ useful context i still i still just

1:03:27 ↗ the reason for my questions is really to

1:03:29 ↗ understand how it

1:03:31 ↗ works versus

1:03:32 ↗ the alternatives for businesses as well

1:03:35 ↗ as for the city so that that's really

1:03:37 ↗ the

1:03:38 ↗ um

1:03:40 ↗ the reason just to understand how it's

1:03:41 ↗ working

1:03:42 ↗ um okay so then a couple more questions

1:03:45 ↗ one is

1:03:47 ↗ um

1:03:47 ↗ [Music]

1:03:49 ↗ there was a discussion about potentially

1:03:51 ↗ prioritizing the

1:03:53 ↗ the buildings that are most out of

1:03:54 ↗ compliance

1:03:57 ↗ and so

1:03:58 ↗ how would that

1:04:00 ↗ work i guess um

1:04:02 ↗ because that requires information about

1:04:05 ↗ that those buildings are out of

1:04:06 ↗ compliance i so i i'm just wondering how

1:04:09 ↗ in practice

1:04:10 ↗ we could do that and i also

1:04:12 ↗ wondered a little bit more about the

1:04:14 ↗ rationale

1:04:15 ↗ for that um

1:04:17 ↗ in particular i i yeah

1:04:20 ↗ yeah

1:04:21 ↗ that's just one option i think that's

1:04:23 ↗ available based on what bellevue has

1:04:25 ↗ been doing and they're doing it by

1:04:27 ↗ looking at i believe the year the

1:04:29 ↗ building was built is one of the

1:04:31 ↗ considerations and then doing estimates

1:04:34 ↗ for

1:04:35 ↗ where their energy use might be

1:04:37 ↗ um so that's just one example of how

1:04:39 ↗ bellevue's done some prioritization they

1:04:41 ↗ have more in the range of 400 plus

1:04:44 ↗ buildings that need to come into

1:04:45 ↗ compliance so they've been really trying

1:04:47 ↗ to figure out where to focus

1:04:51 ↗ and stacy can i ask our clarification um

1:04:55 ↗ is the uh incentive only for certain

1:04:58 ↗ businesses or buildings that

1:05:00 ↗ are a certain percentage or certain

1:05:03 ↗ uh

1:05:05 ↗ difference from where they should be

1:05:07 ↗ so if you know that would also help to

1:05:09 ↗ make sure that we

1:05:10 ↗ uh allow our commercial uh buildings to

1:05:13 ↗ get that access to that incentive

1:05:15 ↗ program

1:05:16 ↗ rather than as uh administrator as

1:05:20 ↗ bob which mentioned they may just never

1:05:21 ↗ do it if they don't have the resources

1:05:23 ↗ to do it

1:05:24 ↗ yeah thanks jen

1:05:29 ↗ okay so the the information would be

1:05:33 ↗ from the businesses themselves as far i

1:05:35 ↗ mean so you would have the year of the

1:05:37 ↗ building that would probably be

1:05:39 ↗ available to

1:05:41 ↗ the city but the

1:05:43 ↗ other information about

1:05:45 ↗ issues with how far out of compliance

1:05:47 ↗ would that be need to be provided by the

1:05:50 ↗ building owner

1:05:51 ↗ we um

1:05:53 ↗ i don't know if i can completely answer

1:05:54 ↗ that i do know we have initial

1:05:56 ↗ information from

1:05:58 ↗ department of commerce

1:06:00 ↗ and then some of the service providers

1:06:02 ↗ we've talked to have access to a lot

1:06:04 ↗ more detailed information that they're

1:06:06 ↗ able to to

1:06:07 ↗ get through their own

1:06:09 ↗ databases it's not public information so

1:06:12 ↗ that's why we would want to work with

1:06:13 ↗ the service provider to do further

1:06:15 ↗ scrubbing of the data

1:06:17 ↗ because several of them have indicated

1:06:18 ↗ they have more information

1:06:20 ↗ and council member hunt i think that

1:06:22 ↗ there are just some easy benchmarks the

1:06:24 ↗ older the building is and the bigger the

1:06:25 ↗ building is if it's an older building

1:06:27 ↗ and it's big it's generally

1:06:30 ↗ producing carbon emissions using older

1:06:32 ↗ technology so i think that's the the low

1:06:35 ↗ hanging fruit and i think as we kind of

1:06:37 ↗ click through

1:06:38 ↗ some of the larger uh

1:06:40 ↗ buildings we've already identified

1:06:42 ↗ obviously a brand new costco

1:06:43 ↗ headquarters is not one we're going to

1:06:45 ↗ be calling because

1:06:46 ↗ high likelihood they're fine

1:06:48 ↗ a target that's i don't know

1:06:52 ↗ you all have been here i mean let's say

1:06:54 ↗ 25 years old

1:06:55 ↗ at the size that it is probably is worth

1:06:58 ↗ a phone call

1:06:59 ↗ so i think that will be i mean we'll use

1:07:01 ↗ the other measures as we can get them

1:07:03 ↗ but i think we'll start with

1:07:05 ↗ size and age

1:07:06 ↗ and go from there again the whole point

1:07:08 ↗ of this is to reduce the carbon

1:07:10 ↗ emissions so if we can pick off the

1:07:12 ↗ larger older buildings first chances are

1:07:15 ↗ we're going to get more emissions

1:07:16 ↗ eliminated

1:07:18 ↗ okay yes thank you

1:07:20 ↗ um and then

1:07:22 ↗ when this has been implemented in other

1:07:25 ↗ cities bellevue for example

1:07:27 ↗ do you have a sense or is there data on

1:07:30 ↗ how

1:07:31 ↗ um so there's data about the average

1:07:33 ↗ compliance how how much above the

1:07:36 ↗ average

1:07:38 ↗ they are but i'm wondering just

1:07:40 ↗ what's the rate of

1:07:42 ↗ buildings that actually go through with

1:07:44 ↗ the improvements to come into compliance

1:07:46 ↗ at all from the program

1:07:49 ↗ um that's something i could definitely

1:07:51 ↗ find out they initiated the program just

1:07:53 ↗ in december or january so

1:07:56 ↗ i know they've taken a number of

1:07:58 ↗ buildings through the initial steps and

1:08:00 ↗ are starting to work on scoping

1:08:02 ↗ assessments and implementation but i can

1:08:04 ↗ find out kind of a percentage of uptake

1:08:08 ↗ in

1:08:08 ↗ that

1:08:10 ↗ okay um

1:08:13 ↗ those are my questions at this time do

1:08:15 ↗ you have any additional questions

1:08:17 ↗ all right

1:08:18 ↗ i will check in with the city clerk if

1:08:20 ↗ there is anyone who has come onto our

1:08:23 ↗ virtual meeting that might want to make

1:08:24 ↗ a comment on this item

1:08:28 ↗ council member hunt we have no virtual

1:08:30 ↗ attendees all right thank you very much

1:08:32 ↗ and i'll also note that there is nobody

1:08:34 ↗ here in council chambers that would give

1:08:36 ↗ us a comment in person so we will with

1:08:39 ↗ that uh move into our committee

1:08:41 ↗ recommendation on this item

1:08:45 ↗ council member ray

1:08:47 ↗ i'll go first i actually like this

1:08:48 ↗ program a lot um

1:08:50 ↗ once i kind of understood kind of all

1:08:51 ↗ the roles and responsibilities who's who

1:08:54 ↗ and who's doing what um there are two

1:08:56 ↗ things that i like um i think that are

1:08:58 ↗ the most significant benefits one is if

1:09:01 ↗ we can get people motivated to move and

1:09:04 ↗ become early adopters particularly some

1:09:05 ↗ of these older

1:09:07 ↗ less conforming buildings and they're

1:09:09 ↗ eligible some for some of the subsidies

1:09:11 ↗ and supports i think that's

1:09:13 ↗ that's

1:09:14 ↗ good for our local businesses and

1:09:16 ↗ because they're going to have to come

1:09:17 ↗ into compliance at some point the other

1:09:19 ↗ thing which is a little more i think

1:09:21 ↗ nuanced is if we can get these buildings

1:09:24 ↗ move early and most of our buildings are

1:09:27 ↗ going to be in the

1:09:29 ↗ 2027 and later range we can pick up an

1:09:32 ↗ additional maybe three or four years

1:09:35 ↗ of them being a low emission building

1:09:37 ↗ instead of a high emission building and

1:09:39 ↗ so we're saving you know three or four

1:09:42 ↗ years worth of

1:09:44 ↗ additional carbon being pumped into the

1:09:45 ↗ atmosphere and i think it's worth a

1:09:47 ↗ hundred thousand dollars

1:09:48 ↗ um

1:09:49 ↗ to accomplish those two things one is to

1:09:51 ↗ get

1:09:52 ↗ access to the to the grants and the

1:09:54 ↗ other is to reduce our

1:09:56 ↗ exposure to carbon emissions through

1:09:57 ↗ that period

1:10:00 ↗ thank you council president walsh

1:10:02 ↗ thanks

1:10:04 ↗ um i'm going to take a different tack on

1:10:06 ↗ this i

1:10:09 ↗ i love the idea of getting our municipal

1:10:10 ↗ buildings in into compliance early i

1:10:14 ↗ love

1:10:15 ↗ the idea of helping non-profits comply

1:10:19 ↗ with the law

1:10:21 ↗ but i think there's already a lot of

1:10:23 ↗ incentives

1:10:25 ↗ in the tune of 75 million dollars from

1:10:27 ↗ the state and a lot of requirements in

1:10:30 ↗ the tune of a clean buildings act um

1:10:34 ↗ from the state

1:10:35 ↗ that are going to move the needles on

1:10:38 ↗ this i think also if we're looking at

1:10:41 ↗ this concept of some of our

1:10:45 ↗ oldest

1:10:46 ↗ and biggest buildings that are probably

1:10:48 ↗ the most out of compliance

1:10:50 ↗ you know target's going to know the

1:10:53 ↗ state of washington laws and they're

1:10:56 ↗ going to know how out of compliance they

1:10:58 ↗ are and how

1:11:00 ↗ much it's going to take to get them to

1:11:03 ↗ do the same

1:11:04 ↗ fred meyer

1:11:06 ↗ same idea i mean these are larger

1:11:08 ↗ companies and

1:11:11 ↗ i'm just not sure i see the benefit i

1:11:14 ↗ mean especially if i'm comparing this to

1:11:16 ↗ the heat pump initiative

1:11:18 ↗ that's targeting low-income residents of

1:11:21 ↗ our city whereas this is really

1:11:24 ↗ targeting some of the largest businesses

1:11:27 ↗ in the city yes i'd like to get them

1:11:29 ↗ into compliance but

1:11:32 ↗ i'm not sure that i think our

1:11:35 ↗ 100k

1:11:37 ↗ is really going to

1:11:39 ↗ move the needle on that i think the 75

1:11:42 ↗ million could

1:11:43 ↗ um

1:11:44 ↗ but i'm just not sold on that if you

1:11:47 ↗ came back to me and said i'm gonna put a

1:11:49 ↗ hundred thousand dollars into

1:11:51 ↗ getting our municipal buildings up to

1:11:53 ↗ compliance

1:11:56 ↗ i think i would be a lot more interested

1:11:58 ↗ so that's that's where i lie on this i

1:12:01 ↗ mean it's not a huge amount of money and

1:12:04 ↗ if

1:12:06 ↗ the other council members are supportive

1:12:08 ↗ i'm fine with it i just don't see

1:12:11 ↗ a huge benefit here

1:12:16 ↗ thank you council president walsh um so

1:12:19 ↗ i

1:12:19 ↗ also

1:12:21 ↗ am

1:12:23 ↗ wondering

1:12:25 ↗ it's it seems to me that there are a

1:12:28 ↗ number of possible outcomes from this

1:12:29 ↗ program spanning from that buildings

1:12:33 ↗ um could use this to determine how

1:12:36 ↗ expensive it is to come into compliance

1:12:37 ↗ and then not comply early

1:12:40 ↗ and then there's also that that this

1:12:42 ↗ would drive early compliance and

1:12:46 ↗ i would like more information about the

1:12:49 ↗ success rates from that from other

1:12:51 ↗ cities the average is is useful but it

1:12:55 ↗ doesn't um explain to me at least the

1:12:57 ↗ success rate and and if they are like

1:13:00 ↗ the rate at which the

1:13:02 ↗ buildings are doing the early compliance

1:13:03 ↗ the other

1:13:05 ↗ piece to me is that um

1:13:08 ↗ some buildings are not required to

1:13:11 ↗ some buildings are not falling under

1:13:12 ↗ this law but they could use the program

1:13:15 ↗ and i wonder if

1:13:16 ↗ for those buildings um

1:13:19 ↗ this is sort of opposite of targeting

1:13:21 ↗ the the most out of compliance but for

1:13:24 ↗ those buildings that don't have to come

1:13:25 ↗ into compliance

1:13:27 ↗ incentivizing them to come into

1:13:29 ↗ compliance seems like

1:13:30 ↗ an alternative approach that might

1:13:34 ↗ be

1:13:35 ↗ a way to um

1:13:37 ↗ is a different group and they maybe that

1:13:40 ↗ would also work so i guess i

1:13:42 ↗ um

1:13:43 ↗ not very articulate on this but i i

1:13:46 ↗ question i don't feel like i have a

1:13:48 ↗ great sense of what the

1:13:50 ↗ impact would be because there seems to

1:13:51 ↗ be such a range of possible outcomes

1:13:53 ↗ from this program unlike as you know in

1:13:56 ↗ contrast to

1:13:58 ↗ how i felt the

1:13:59 ↗ earlier heat pump program it was very

1:14:01 ↗ clear what the outcome would be and the

1:14:04 ↗ sort of scope of impact from that

1:14:08 ↗ so that's

1:14:09 ↗ my thoughts i feel like more information

1:14:11 ↗ would be helpful and maybe some

1:14:14 ↗ alternative

1:14:15 ↗ structures around

1:14:18 ↗ who

1:14:19 ↗ receives this incentive and rationales

1:14:22 ↗ that we could consider

1:14:26 ↗ councilmember ray

1:14:28 ↗ thanks just um

1:14:30 ↗ i think it was that really interesting

1:14:32 ↗ points of view on the on on it too i

1:14:34 ↗ just i i

1:14:36 ↗ value those different perspectives so

1:14:38 ↗ i'm i have a couple thoughts about kind

1:14:40 ↗ of the next steps and just thinking i

1:14:41 ↗ mean do we want to bring it back i mean

1:14:44 ↗ send stacey off and jen off to

1:14:47 ↗ um you know provide a few more questions

1:14:50 ↗ answered or um you know i think that's

1:14:52 ↗ one

1:14:53 ↗ certainly reasonable option the other is

1:14:54 ↗ to send it off to the full council

1:14:56 ↗ without a recommendation too

1:14:59 ↗ anyway just i was just kind of thinking

1:15:01 ↗ about how to

1:15:02 ↗ how to move this

1:15:04 ↗ forward and i

1:15:06 ↗ um i don't know that i have a strong

1:15:07 ↗ feeling one way or the other but those

1:15:08 ↗ seem like the paths forward to me

1:15:14 ↗ council president walsh yeah i like the

1:15:18 ↗ idea that you threw out as far as

1:15:20 ↗ trying to use this to target buildings

1:15:23 ↗ that wouldn't necessarily

1:15:24 ↗ have to come into compliance to me that

1:15:27 ↗ that gives a little bit more feeling of

1:15:29 ↗ oh this isn't just

1:15:31 ↗ throwing a nickel on top of a pile of

1:15:35 ↗ 500

1:15:36 ↗ and hoping it makes a difference it

1:15:37 ↗ feels like it's

1:15:40 ↗ putting a dollar out on the sidewalk

1:15:41 ↗ that somebody might pick up i i don't

1:15:43 ↗ know the analogies are going too far

1:15:45 ↗ there

1:15:46 ↗ but

1:15:47 ↗ i like that as a potential idea um i do

1:15:51 ↗ also have the concerns about

1:15:54 ↗ whether

1:15:55 ↗ building owners would choose to

1:15:58 ↗ use um

1:16:00 ↗ use this to get a sense of what their

1:16:02 ↗ potential costs are and then not be

1:16:04 ↗ ready to make movements so understanding

1:16:06 ↗ how the bell view program or any other

1:16:09 ↗ state program

1:16:12 ↗ is running as far as actually getting

1:16:14 ↗ the results would be useful

1:16:18 ↗ okay

1:16:19 ↗ um

1:16:21 ↗ so i think i i'll check in at this point

1:16:23 ↗ is there a super time crunch on this

1:16:26 ↗ item

1:16:28 ↗ i'd say um the time crunch will be the

1:16:31 ↗ early adopter incentives the money

1:16:34 ↗ that's available now is statewide first

1:16:36 ↗ come first serve so the sooner we get a

1:16:38 ↗ program up and running to support access

1:16:42 ↗ is beneficial

1:16:44 ↗ if we choose that direction for the

1:16:45 ↗ program there are a number of other

1:16:47 ↗ cities that are looking at starting this

1:16:49 ↗ program

1:16:51 ↗ so and there's probably limited service

1:16:53 ↗ providers so getting out ahead of that

1:16:56 ↗ i think would be

1:16:58 ↗ hugely valuable but there's not a couple

1:17:00 ↗ week

1:17:01 ↗ timeline turn around but we'd like to

1:17:03 ↗ start something in the next couple

1:17:04 ↗ months

1:17:08 ↗ city administrator

1:17:11 ↗ would the committee consider having us

1:17:13 ↗ go back

1:17:14 ↗ what i'm hearing from you is i think

1:17:16 ↗ general support conceptually but

1:17:18 ↗ questions about implementation and

1:17:20 ↗ and uh um

1:17:22 ↗ prioritization so if we were to come

1:17:24 ↗ back

1:17:25 ↗ um

1:17:26 ↗ if the if you would feel comfortable

1:17:28 ↗ having us putting forward this to the

1:17:30 ↗ council

1:17:31 ↗ with the direction to make some tweaks

1:17:32 ↗ to that putting it on regular business

1:17:35 ↗ on july 18th

1:17:37 ↗ versus coming back to the committee

1:17:45 ↗ council member ray i don't know that we

1:17:47 ↗ do have uh kind of a

1:17:49 ↗ um a consensus on the path forward

1:17:53 ↗ so i i think that there's a difference

1:17:56 ↗ of opinion about

1:17:57 ↗ um

1:17:58 ↗ who

1:17:59 ↗ who we want to be serving here and how

1:18:01 ↗ we want to be serving them i mean that's

1:18:02 ↗ that's kind of what i was taking away

1:18:04 ↗ from

1:18:04 ↗ what

1:18:05 ↗ council president was saying so

1:18:08 ↗ um i think that that's that's kind of

1:18:10 ↗ significant and

1:18:12 ↗ um

1:18:13 ↗ i'm not you know i i don't know that if

1:18:16 ↗ you went and answered all of our

1:18:18 ↗ questions if if we would would agree on

1:18:20 ↗ a

1:18:21 ↗ a path forward that's why i almost

1:18:23 ↗ wonder if the path forward is okay

1:18:27 ↗ the committee

1:18:28 ↗ deliberated had a good discussion had

1:18:31 ↗ some differences of opinion here's their

1:18:33 ↗ here's where they came down

1:18:34 ↗ um and and going to the council my full

1:18:37 ↗ council might be the best course of

1:18:39 ↗ action um i don't know what

1:18:41 ↗ you all think

1:18:46 ↗ i i think there's one

1:18:48 ↗ information one piece of information

1:18:50 ↗ that would be helpful for

1:18:52 ↗ based on me and council president

1:18:55 ↗ walsh's comments which is this uh actual

1:18:58 ↗ compliance rate from programs that have

1:19:00 ↗ been established so i think that would

1:19:02 ↗ be

1:19:03 ↗ really helpful

1:19:05 ↗ and then

1:19:07 ↗ yeah i do think on the prioritization um

1:19:10 ↗ it would be helpful to

1:19:12 ↗ have

1:19:13 ↗ options but i don't know that i think

1:19:16 ↗ it would be best if this committee were

1:19:19 ↗ able to

1:19:20 ↗ consider and make a recommendation

1:19:21 ↗ towards the council on those options so

1:19:24 ↗ um

1:19:25 ↗ i don't know that

1:19:27 ↗ i think if we had those options that

1:19:28 ↗ could help i also recognize that this is

1:19:30 ↗ not

1:19:31 ↗ that this is also similar to a pilot in

1:19:33 ↗ terms of the amount of money that's

1:19:35 ↗ being put forward and so um

1:19:39 ↗ you know we can learn from this

1:19:41 ↗ as well going forward but i

1:19:45 ↗ yeah i

1:19:46 ↗ feel like that piece of information will

1:19:47 ↗ be helpful for making recommendation

1:19:49 ↗ then also just some options for how to

1:19:51 ↗ prioritize this to make sure that we

1:19:53 ↗ have the impact we are setting out to

1:19:55 ↗ have would be good so my feeling is that

1:19:58 ↗ this should come back to our committee

1:19:59 ↗ before it goes back to council but um

1:20:01 ↗ council president washington yeah that

1:20:03 ↗ was what i was coming down to as well um

1:20:06 ↗ first of all to make sure that this in

1:20:10 ↗ other areas is actually achieving

1:20:12 ↗ compliance

1:20:13 ↗ and getting that information whether

1:20:15 ↗ again it's from the city of bellevue

1:20:17 ↗ which has a very new program or

1:20:19 ↗ something else that you can see

1:20:23 ↗ and then also

1:20:24 ↗ providing us with

1:20:26 ↗ um some options of how we would

1:20:29 ↗ prioritize and whether there's an option

1:20:31 ↗ to address some of the buildings that

1:20:33 ↗ might not need to come into compliance

1:20:35 ↗ and then i think we can use that as a

1:20:37 ↗ conversation to

1:20:39 ↗ choose between some of those options

1:20:41 ↗ make a recommendation to council as far

1:20:44 ↗ as this is the path

1:20:46 ↗ we want you guys to consider but we're

1:20:49 ↗ not necessarily in agreement that

1:20:51 ↗ you should approve this um but at least

1:20:56 ↗ gives the scope of things that we've had

1:20:58 ↗ a conversation about

1:21:01 ↗ councilmember um i like it i mean let's

1:21:04 ↗ let's vet some different options i mean

1:21:07 ↗ i mean certainly the administration put

1:21:08 ↗ together some options on how to go

1:21:10 ↗ forward so if we can come back with some

1:21:12 ↗ different options we can vet them and

1:21:14 ↗ you know we have a richer set of uh

1:21:18 ↗ things to take back to council the next

1:21:20 ↗ time they meet we meet

1:21:23 ↗ so that that works for me

1:21:29 ↗ does that sound like that would work for

1:21:31 ↗ yeah no great i appreciate the feedback

1:21:33 ↗ and yeah absolutely we can put that

1:21:35 ↗ together okay um

1:21:37 ↗ that would be

1:21:38 ↗ a helpful

1:21:40 ↗ city administrator just a question you

1:21:42 ↗ this is a special meeting of the

1:21:43 ↗ committee you have a regular meeting

1:21:45 ↗ coming up

1:21:47 ↗ in

1:21:48 ↗ two is it next seven

1:21:51 ↗ it's july 7th

1:21:53 ↗ um

1:21:54 ↗ you know i my senses is that the

1:21:56 ↗ prioritizations are pretty quick i mean

1:21:58 ↗ we would we would agree with council

1:22:00 ↗ president walsh tonight um but i don't

1:22:03 ↗ think that's what the committee wants to

1:22:04 ↗ do to do to

1:22:06 ↗ to confirm this on the prioritization

1:22:08 ↗ piece to look at those buildings uh that

1:22:11 ↗ aren't required but who might use this

1:22:13 ↗ as a as an incentive uh the

1:22:15 ↗ administration has no objection to that

1:22:17 ↗ so that's what we're going to come back

1:22:18 ↗ with and i can tell you that this

1:22:19 ↗ evening so um i think the other piece is

1:22:23 ↗ then just getting information we may not

1:22:25 ↗ be able to get information from the

1:22:26 ↗ state of washington the city of bellevue

1:22:29 ↗ is the

1:22:30 ↗ community i believe that's most

1:22:31 ↗ progressive

1:22:33 ↗ again we have a climate action plan the

1:22:35 ↗ community has said issaquah we're tired

1:22:37 ↗ of you following why don't you once in a

1:22:39 ↗ while be out front and and and set the

1:22:43 ↗ pace for these things so

1:22:45 ↗ i'm not sure what state we can go back

1:22:47 ↗ to evanston and i can try to get the

1:22:49 ↗ information this was a program that was

1:22:51 ↗ five or six years ago

1:22:53 ↗ and we could get the information that

1:22:55 ↗ will say

1:22:56 ↗ that

1:22:57 ↗ you know many many businesses did not

1:22:59 ↗ want to participate and the city did not

1:23:01 ↗ have the ability through the city

1:23:03 ↗ attorney to litigate against the

1:23:05 ↗ businesses and so that would be the

1:23:07 ↗ information that we would find um we

1:23:09 ↗ could try to put all this together

1:23:12 ↗ for next week

1:23:14 ↗ in order to keep this moving because i

1:23:15 ↗ think our concern is

1:23:17 ↗ we want to be out front we want issaquah

1:23:19 ↗ businesses to have an edge that other

1:23:21 ↗ businesses in king county don't have and

1:23:24 ↗ other businesses in the state of

1:23:25 ↗ washington don't have that's the reason

1:23:26 ↗ we're here this evening

1:23:28 ↗ so i think there's a reluctance to to

1:23:30 ↗ drag this out obviously the summer time

1:23:32 ↗ if we needed to come back to you at an

1:23:34 ↗ august meeting we could do that and then

1:23:36 ↗ try to to start this in september or

1:23:39 ↗ october

1:23:40 ↗ but

1:23:41 ↗ we are hearing from residents all the

1:23:43 ↗ time gee whiz city why aren't you doing

1:23:45 ↗ getting this climate action plan going

1:23:48 ↗ and so

1:23:50 ↗ i apologize if you're hearing

1:23:51 ↗ frustration from me this evening

1:23:54 ↗ but here's an opportunity for us to be a

1:23:56 ↗ leader in the state we happen to have a

1:23:57 ↗ good partner in bellevue also being a

1:24:00 ↗ leader in the state we want to provide

1:24:02 ↗ this leadership to our businesses

1:24:05 ↗ so we can agree this evening to change

1:24:08 ↗ the prioritization for the suggestion of

1:24:10 ↗ council president walsh

1:24:12 ↗ we could come back then

1:24:14 ↗ next week and we'll spend the next

1:24:16 ↗ couple of days looking for national

1:24:18 ↗ examples outside the state of washington

1:24:20 ↗ for compliance so if those are the two

1:24:21 ↗ pieces of information you're looking at

1:24:23 ↗ we can then come back it's a single item

1:24:25 ↗ agenda for the committee the next

1:24:27 ↗ iteration of title 18.

1:24:29 ↗ that would then allow it to be on the

1:24:31 ↗ council's agenda

1:24:34 ↗ for july 18th i think

1:24:36 ↗ city clerk

1:24:38 ↗ i think the timing wouldn't be

1:24:40 ↗ too significant but again

1:24:42 ↗ we hear the council and the council is

1:24:44 ↗ telling us nearly every day we are tired

1:24:47 ↗ of following we don't want to go on the

1:24:49 ↗ redmond

1:24:50 ↗ website every week to see what redmond's

1:24:52 ↗ doing we want redmond to go on the

1:24:54 ↗ issaquah website and see what issaquah

1:24:56 ↗ is doing and i think this is a program

1:24:59 ↗ that accomplishes that so

1:25:01 ↗ madam chair if you're comfortable with

1:25:03 ↗ us coming back next week with the

1:25:05 ↗ program um priorities pursuant to

1:25:08 ↗ council president walsh's suggestion

1:25:10 ↗ we'll do our level best to

1:25:13 ↗ chat with our colleagues around the

1:25:14 ↗ country to see what compliance

1:25:16 ↗ information we can find and we'll have

1:25:18 ↗ that for you at your meeting next week

1:25:25 ↗ councilman ray thanks um i just want to

1:25:27 ↗ get some clarity um

1:25:29 ↗ so is the

1:25:31 ↗ what what you're suggesting city

1:25:33 ↗ administrator is we won't

1:25:35 ↗ um

1:25:36 ↗ spend the hundred thousand dollars on on

1:25:38 ↗ outreach and that nice uh

1:25:40 ↗ graph that

1:25:41 ↗ the team put together

1:25:43 ↗ um but we're gonna spend a hundred

1:25:44 ↗ thousand dollars on

1:25:47 ↗ all right we're not gonna spend a

1:25:48 ↗ hundred thousand dollars in outreach to

1:25:51 ↗ businesses that will fall under the

1:25:53 ↗ auspices of the state law but we're

1:25:54 ↗ going to use that money to do outreach

1:25:56 ↗ to

1:25:57 ↗ businesses that would not be covered by

1:25:59 ↗ state laws that is is that kind of what

1:26:01 ↗ we're talking about i think we're

1:26:03 ↗ looking at targeted outreach

1:26:05 ↗ uh this is we're not going to exclude

1:26:07 ↗ anyone but i think what will what we'll

1:26:09 ↗ do with the money and what we'll work

1:26:11 ↗ with the with the provider is to say

1:26:13 ↗ here are businesses we can we can we can

1:26:16 ↗ we have

1:26:18 ↗ tax record data here are businesses we

1:26:20 ↗ would like you to focus on and we can

1:26:22 ↗ work with the chamber we can work with

1:26:25 ↗ other business organizations in town

1:26:27 ↗ once we have that list and say we want

1:26:29 ↗ to focus on that we're going to spend

1:26:30 ↗ our energy and time trying to get those

1:26:33 ↗ businesses to go through the the uh and

1:26:35 ↗ maybe you can just put up the slide

1:26:37 ↗ again

1:26:38 ↗ i want to get the term correct

1:26:40 ↗ uh the uh the scoping perform scoping

1:26:42 ↗ assessment i mean that's the that's the

1:26:44 ↗ most costly piece of this the outreach

1:26:47 ↗ pieces

1:26:48 ↗ i mean as general i think staff

1:26:50 ↗ resources uh based on council president

1:26:52 ↗ walsh's request

1:26:54 ↗ will work on those businesses um that

1:26:57 ↗ would not be otherwise required to meet

1:26:59 ↗ this and then if they say hey this is

1:27:01 ↗ very interesting we connect them with

1:27:03 ↗ the service provider the service

1:27:04 ↗ provider provides the scoping assessment

1:27:06 ↗ that scoping assessment is a cost to us

1:27:10 ↗ but that scoping assessment would be

1:27:11 ↗ focused on those businesses that would

1:27:13 ↗ not otherwise be required to that's what

1:27:15 ↗ i'm hearing one more problem at least

1:27:17 ↗ so council president walsh this evening

1:27:19 ↗ yeah um good that's great clarification

1:27:22 ↗ so would businesses who are not going to

1:27:24 ↗ be covered by the provisions of the

1:27:26 ↗ state law be eligible for the 75 million

1:27:29 ↗ dollar

1:27:30 ↗ some of them oh sorry yes

1:27:32 ↗ i was done yeah some of them are um

1:27:35 ↗ the multi-family i know is and i believe

1:27:39 ↗ i may not have this correct but some

1:27:41 ↗ under the 50 000 but i need to check on

1:27:43 ↗ that i know at least multifamily is

1:27:45 ↗ allowed where they're not required to

1:27:47 ↗ comply with the law yet however they

1:27:49 ↗ will with the new amendment that's still

1:27:51 ↗ undergoing rulemaking for energy targets

1:27:53 ↗ so they would be eligible then for the

1:27:55 ↗ subsidies yeah um so all we're really

1:27:58 ↗ talking about is changing kind of a

1:27:59 ↗ prioritization of outreach right

1:28:02 ↗ a broader more targeted outreach that's

1:28:04 ↗ what i mean council president walsh

1:28:06 ↗ please correct me but that's what i'm

1:28:07 ↗ hearing you say and i think there was

1:28:10 ↗ general

1:28:11 ↗ interest

1:28:12 ↗ i don't want to put words in council

1:28:13 ↗ member hunt's mouth but uh general

1:28:15 ↗ interest in doing that as well

1:28:17 ↗ well and technically it came from

1:28:19 ↗ council member hunt first but you know

1:28:21 ↗ whatever um

1:28:23 ↗ the other thing i would throw out there

1:28:24 ↗ is any focus that we can do on

1:28:26 ↗ non-profits as part of our focused

1:28:29 ↗ outreach i think would be

1:28:31 ↗ appreciated so i think based on what i'm

1:28:35 ↗ hearing then i'm probably comfortable

1:28:39 ↗ bringing having that come back

1:28:41 ↗ on the 7th and then making it for the

1:28:44 ↗ 18th i don't know about the other

1:28:46 ↗ members

1:28:48 ↗ yes i am as well

1:28:51 ↗ i am as well and probably even

1:28:54 ↗ more so i think with a small

1:28:58 ↗ modification to the discussion around

1:29:01 ↗ outreach i feel like we could do it

1:29:03 ↗ tonight

1:29:08 ↗ i

1:29:09 ↗ correct me if i'm wrong i think the

1:29:10 ↗ outreach is a very small portion of the

1:29:13 ↗ hundred thousand so it's a small part of

1:29:14 ↗ the program most of the funding is going

1:29:17 ↗ to these performing scoping assessments

1:29:19 ↗ so i it's it's targeting

1:29:22 ↗ um

1:29:23 ↗ the the

1:29:24 ↗ prioritization would be targeting for

1:29:26 ↗ the program which would include the

1:29:28 ↗ scoping assessments which would be the

1:29:30 ↗ bigger piece but the outreach would be

1:29:31 ↗ for everyone so they're aware

1:29:33 ↗ that's what my understanding is that and

1:29:36 ↗ and again

1:29:37 ↗ my previous experience

1:29:39 ↗ i didn't do this directly in evanston

1:29:41 ↗ but the staff members that did work for

1:29:43 ↗ me

1:29:44 ↗ businesses don't care

1:29:46 ↗ i mean i i don't mean to be rude about

1:29:48 ↗ it but

1:29:50 ↗ they don't because they look at the

1:29:51 ↗ bottom line this is they're busy

1:29:54 ↗ pandemic recession all of that

1:29:57 ↗ this is the last thing most of them want

1:29:58 ↗ to hear so with the outreach the

1:30:00 ↗ outreach is really critical because if

1:30:01 ↗ we can say

1:30:02 ↗ this can save you money there's grant

1:30:04 ↗ money to help you do this from the state

1:30:06 ↗ of washington if you do this soon

1:30:08 ↗ so of every five that we talked to one

1:30:11 ↗ might say hey you know

1:30:14 ↗ i've got third quarter numbers i've got

1:30:16 ↗ to reach with the operation of this

1:30:18 ↗ building maybe this will help me get

1:30:19 ↗ there

1:30:20 ↗ and so then they

1:30:22 ↗ we give hand them off to the service

1:30:23 ↗ provider they do the assessment and then

1:30:25 ↗ they say hey yeah let's make maybe

1:30:27 ↗ something i can do fourth quarter and

1:30:28 ↗ then the year

1:30:30 ↗ with with fewer costs

1:30:32 ↗ but most building owners don't care

1:30:36 ↗ they see this as a nuisance if if if a

1:30:39 ↗ cop comes to their door with a summons a

1:30:41 ↗ sheriff with a summon saying you're

1:30:43 ↗ going to take you to take you to jail

1:30:45 ↗ because you haven't upgraded your

1:30:46 ↗ building then they might care

1:30:47 ↗ so this is a wonderful opportunity for

1:30:49 ↗ us again to connect with businesses hold

1:30:52 ↗ their hand say this is worthwhile and

1:30:55 ↗ who benefits but the business in

1:30:57 ↗ issaquah and the community members

1:30:59 ↗ because there's reduced

1:31:01 ↗ carbon and there's so few things

1:31:03 ↗ we can do as a city to directly impact

1:31:07 ↗ carbon emissions

1:31:09 ↗ this is one of them

1:31:12 ↗ i was just going to note that if we are

1:31:13 ↗ working with buildings not required to

1:31:16 ↗ come into compliance

1:31:17 ↗ there is not a target for them to reach

1:31:20 ↗ in terms of energy efficiency so just

1:31:23 ↗ thinking

1:31:24 ↗ of possibly reshaping this program as

1:31:27 ↗ a more

1:31:29 ↗ general energy efficiency program

1:31:30 ↗ instead of the particular focus on the

1:31:33 ↗ clean building

1:31:34 ↗ standard could be one opportunity to

1:31:37 ↗ better reflect that potential uh

1:31:39 ↗ prioritization that we're discussing and

1:31:41 ↗ maybe we can do both because i also

1:31:43 ↗ think we want

1:31:45 ↗ we don't want to throw the

1:31:47 ↗ program out with the bathwater correct

1:31:50 ↗ but but i think councilmember president

1:31:53 ↗ walsh councilmember hunt's points are

1:31:54 ↗ valid and again we have the opportunity

1:31:57 ↗ as this cloud to do it as you think

1:31:59 ↗ issaquah needs it done

1:32:01 ↗ so let us

1:32:03 ↗ rally to that and get it done that way

1:32:08 ↗ okay um

1:32:10 ↗ thanks and and i'll just

1:32:12 ↗ one

1:32:14 ↗ i i believe that the non-com buildings

1:32:16 ↗ that weren't required to be compliant

1:32:18 ↗ they were eligible for

1:32:20 ↗ this program

1:32:21 ↗ [Music]

1:32:22 ↗ under that were proposing in the

1:32:24 ↗ original staff report they were so you

1:32:27 ↗ would have to figure out how to

1:32:29 ↗ um

1:32:30 ↗ determine what is compliance against not

1:32:32 ↗ a standard for them in any event as long

1:32:34 ↗ as if they're in the program but i think

1:32:36 ↗ you know i think compliance would be

1:32:38 ↗ basically as though they were required

1:32:40 ↗ to meet those clean energy standards um

1:32:43 ↗ i think that's how we would internally

1:32:44 ↗ assess

1:32:46 ↗ the success and follow through

1:32:48 ↗ for those

1:32:49 ↗ um but yeah i think you're hearing you

1:32:51 ↗ know this this change that we would like

1:32:54 ↗ to see for this first pilot again that's

1:32:56 ↗ really to have

1:32:58 ↗ the impact if we if we are targeting

1:33:01 ↗ those buildings that don't need to come

1:33:03 ↗ into compliance then even by entering

1:33:05 ↗ into this program they will be going

1:33:07 ↗ above and beyond what is necessary and

1:33:09 ↗ so we have we have that impact um so i

1:33:12 ↗ think

1:33:13 ↗ i think that would be a good

1:33:16 ↗ um

1:33:17 ↗ change and i think if that can be

1:33:18 ↗ brought back quickly that would be great

1:33:20 ↗ and then yeah on the last piece i don't

1:33:22 ↗ think we i think to the extent that

1:33:24 ↗ information is available from bellevue

1:33:26 ↗ that would be most similar to our

1:33:28 ↗ situation i realize it's a newer program

1:33:31 ↗ but i don't think we need an extensive

1:33:33 ↗ exhaustive search of other programs that

1:33:35 ↗ will be less similar to us it's really

1:33:38 ↗ just to look at

1:33:39 ↗ success in other

1:33:40 ↗ cities for that particular aspect

1:33:45 ↗ um okay so i think we're all comfortable

1:33:47 ↗ with this coming back

1:33:49 ↗ um on our next committee meeting and

1:33:51 ↗ then

1:33:52 ↗ quick turnaround to council

1:33:55 ↗ yeah i guess the only question would be

1:33:58 ↗ do we still feel like it needs to come

1:34:00 ↗ back or

1:34:01 ↗ do we feel like we because the the only

1:34:03 ↗ piece that the administration is going

1:34:05 ↗ to bring back to us is that

1:34:08 ↗ um

1:34:09 ↗ percentage of compliance and i think

1:34:12 ↗ that

1:34:14 ↗ that

1:34:15 ↗ would be something that if they can get

1:34:17 ↗ a hold of would also come back to

1:34:20 ↗ council

1:34:21 ↗ in doing a conversation about that

1:34:25 ↗ are there any other pieces that would

1:34:26 ↗ need to be worked out and reconsidered

1:34:28 ↗ with this um

1:34:30 ↗ prioritization change

1:34:33 ↗ not that i can think of i think we have

1:34:35 ↗ a um opportunity

1:34:37 ↗ taking the feedback from you all from

1:34:40 ↗ the rest of council we have an

1:34:41 ↗ opportunity to shape the scope of work

1:34:43 ↗ with the service provider however we

1:34:44 ↗ want we're not under contract with

1:34:46 ↗ anyone so we can really

1:34:48 ↗ shape that prioritization in that

1:34:50 ↗ contract but

1:34:51 ↗ and it's just the outreach as i think

1:34:54 ↗ has been said a couple times this

1:34:55 ↗ evening the vast majority of the money

1:34:57 ↗ associated here is going with the

1:34:58 ↗ scoping assessment so i think we can be

1:35:01 ↗ precise in the request on the outreach

1:35:03 ↗ and we'll be we'll be doing it

1:35:05 ↗ ourselves there's an intern that stacey

1:35:08 ↗ has i think your plan was to have the

1:35:09 ↗ intern involved in some direct outreach

1:35:12 ↗ as well

1:35:14 ↗ so yeah we can include that and we could

1:35:15 ↗ come back on the 18th

1:35:18 ↗ and put on the regular business so that

1:35:19 ↗ we can make sure that all this gets

1:35:21 ↗ reported out if that

1:35:23 ↗ would work versus coming back to the

1:35:24 ↗ committee and then taking it back to

1:35:26 ↗ council whatever the committee's

1:35:27 ↗ pleasure

1:35:33 ↗ um so one question on the

1:35:35 ↗ the prioritization my thought had been

1:35:38 ↗ that the prioritization would be for the

1:35:40 ↗ buildings that also go through the

1:35:42 ↗ scoping assessment process

1:35:45 ↗ is that your understanding

1:35:48 ↗ uh it can be i think well that

1:35:51 ↗ procedurally that gets a little bit more

1:35:53 ↗ complicated because are we then going to

1:35:54 ↗ say um

1:35:56 ↗ if a building that's not that would just

1:35:58 ↗ normally be interested

1:36:00 ↗ and otherwise has to do would they have

1:36:02 ↗ to wait or would we be

1:36:05 ↗ we'll be saving slots

1:36:07 ↗ for them because i think because i think

1:36:08 ↗ all of this has been used kind of as

1:36:10 ↗ first come first served

1:36:12 ↗ regardless and so if that's not the case

1:36:15 ↗ then we would have to come up with a

1:36:17 ↗ mechanism to say either a certain number

1:36:19 ↗ of these would be reserved for those

1:36:22 ↗ based on the outreach

1:36:24 ↗ program then the balance could be any

1:36:26 ↗ other qualified building

1:36:28 ↗ um

1:36:29 ↗ or we would

1:36:30 ↗ i guess that was what it would have to

1:36:32 ↗ be yeah

1:36:34 ↗ council member

1:36:35 ↗ it seems to me that the outreach is the

1:36:37 ↗ prime mover it's it's the one that it's

1:36:39 ↗ the move that fills the pipeline and

1:36:41 ↗ then the pipeline flows through

1:36:43 ↗ so if we focus the outreach um into

1:36:46 ↗ council president walsh you know target

1:36:47 ↗ knows the law is coming they know what

1:36:49 ↗ to do they can get ahead of it so what

1:36:50 ↗ we're trying to do is reach those people

1:36:52 ↗ who really aren't aware of it and

1:36:53 ↗ motivate them to to jump into it and

1:36:56 ↗ also to focus on those that would not be

1:36:59 ↗ um required by state law to

1:37:02 ↗ do this so so i i i think i agree that

1:37:05 ↗ the the

1:37:06 ↗ the biggest change is re-prioritizing

1:37:08 ↗ the outrage and then then um

1:37:12 ↗ you know once someone's in the mill

1:37:14 ↗ i guess

1:37:15 ↗ um we're

1:37:17 ↗ the

1:37:18 ↗ the same criteria would then apply

1:37:20 ↗ downstream to you know performing the

1:37:22 ↗ the scoping part of it too

1:37:24 ↗ you know um but i think

1:37:26 ↗ you know that's the same criteria you

1:37:28 ↗ know we're going to support these these

1:37:30 ↗ these

1:37:32 ↗ and i think the other issue is that it's

1:37:33 ↗ the end of june and so if we find that

1:37:36 ↗ there's wild interest among a lot of

1:37:38 ↗ buildings

1:37:40 ↗ that i mean overall and the the

1:37:42 ↗ contractor comes back and says sorry

1:37:43 ↗ we've spent all your money in six months

1:37:46 ↗ then we can come back to the council and

1:37:47 ↗ say here's

1:37:49 ↗ boots on the ground data this is these

1:37:50 ↗ are the buildings that have applied

1:37:52 ↗ these are the sizes these are the ones

1:37:54 ↗ and then i think with that data you can

1:37:55 ↗ decide okay let's put some more money

1:37:57 ↗ into this i mean not unlike the previous

1:37:59 ↗ item again when you're at the forefront

1:38:01 ↗ of something you don't always have all

1:38:03 ↗ the answers but if this is successful we

1:38:05 ↗ can come back with lots of data and if

1:38:07 ↗ the council chooses to make an

1:38:08 ↗ additional investment great if not

1:38:11 ↗ then we move on to

1:38:13 ↗ the other issues in the climate action

1:38:14 ↗ plan

1:38:20 ↗ i i don't know that um you know to

1:38:23 ↗ council president

1:38:24 ↗ i don't i don't know that i need to see

1:38:26 ↗ this again in committee

1:38:28 ↗ that being said our committee meeting is

1:38:30 ↗ between now and the next council meeting

1:38:32 ↗ and so we could have a quick touch on it

1:38:34 ↗ and it wouldn't really affect anything

1:38:36 ↗ in terms of the timeline

1:38:37 ↗ so

1:38:46 ↗ um

1:38:47 ↗ i i'm fine with this going to uh

1:38:50 ↗ going to the council um regular business

1:38:54 ↗ i i do think if if we

1:38:56 ↗ advance it without another committee

1:38:58 ↗ meeting it should go on regular business

1:39:00 ↗ and it

1:39:01 ↗ i think

1:39:05 ↗ we can some we can advance our

1:39:08 ↗ recommendation can be to advance this to

1:39:09 ↗ the full council with these scoping

1:39:11 ↗ changes sort of pending

1:39:14 ↗ seeing that data and scoping changes

1:39:17 ↗ what's that does that work okay

1:39:21 ↗ okay um then i'll

1:39:23 ↗ make

1:39:24 ↗ that motion that i just indicated

1:39:28 ↗ those in favor please signify by saying

1:39:30 ↗ aye aye aye aye

1:39:32 ↗ and council uh remember hot members of

1:39:35 ↗ the committee thank you um

1:39:37 ↗ i pushed you a little hard i did it

1:39:40 ↗ because

1:39:41 ↗ we want to move the climate action plan

1:39:43 ↗ forward

1:39:45 ↗ and if being a little bit nimble and you

1:39:48 ↗ know trying to kind of get to yes it's

1:39:50 ↗ going to help to do that i hope that

1:39:51 ↗ that's appropriate

1:39:53 ↗ because really

1:39:54 ↗ the community has spent so much time

1:39:56 ↗ doing the plan and really said to us and

1:39:58 ↗ continues to say to us almost on a daily

1:40:00 ↗ basis

1:40:01 ↗ why isn't it done yet and so here is a

1:40:03 ↗ low-hanging fruit where we really think

1:40:05 ↗ we can actually have some tangible

1:40:07 ↗ results so i appreciate your willingness

1:40:09 ↗ to be a little creative there toward the

1:40:10 ↗ end to help move this forward so thank

1:40:13 ↗ you

1:40:14 ↗ thank you and i i think

1:40:17 ↗ um

1:40:19 ↗ and my fellow council members can chime

1:40:21 ↗ in but i think we're all on the same

1:40:23 ↗ page we all recognize the importance of

1:40:24 ↗ the climate action plan and the

1:40:26 ↗ importance that the community

1:40:29 ↗ has

1:40:30 ↗ rightfully put on implementing that

1:40:32 ↗ climate action plan and the concerns

1:40:34 ↗ that you're hearing

1:40:35 ↗ from those of us who who voice our

1:40:37 ↗ concerns is really to make sure that

1:40:39 ↗ it's

1:40:40 ↗ has the impact

1:40:42 ↗ that we

1:40:43 ↗ are setting out to have so

1:40:45 ↗ that's that's where these concerns are

1:40:47 ↗ coming

1:40:48 ↗ from and appreciate the work on this

1:40:51 ↗ item and we'll look forward to seeing um

1:40:54 ↗ seeing it come back to the regular

1:40:56 ↗ council the regular council meeting or

1:40:58 ↗ council meeting on the regular agenda

1:41:00 ↗ um

1:41:01 ↗ do you have what you have what you need

1:41:04 ↗ from us yes thank you we'll make those

1:41:06 ↗ revisions and look forward to talking

1:41:08 ↗ with you in july okay great

1:41:10 ↗ um

1:41:11 ↗ that was our second and final agenda

1:41:13 ↗ item for this evening so i will ask if

1:41:15 ↗ there's any announcements that any

1:41:17 ↗ council members have at this point and

1:41:19 ↗ there being no announcements and no

1:41:21 ↗ further business we are then adjourned

1:41:23 ↗ at 8 12 pm thank you

Approved minutes

Extracted from the next meeting's packet, where this meeting's minutes were approved as a consent-calendar attachment.

Open PDF

Attendance

Council / Members (3)

Victoria Hunt

Chris Reh

Lindsey Walsh

Staff (2)

Wally Bobkiewicz, City Administrator

Chris Grabowski, Deputy City Clerk

Recommendations & actions (1)

Sentences extracted from the narrative containing words like recommended, requested, directed, moved, or approved. Best-effort — verify against the full minutes for context.

Without objection, the minutes were unanimously approved with the following corrections, adding the following to the Council feedback section on process in ID 1139 Title 18: Zoning & Uses: • Goals and Outcomes Chart…