Environmental Board · Wednesday, September 13, 2023 · City Council Digest

2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Minutes of August 9, 2023

packet pp.3–5

▶ Watch from 2:08 Open packet at p.3 ↗

Staff report:

APPROVAL OF MINUTES a) 08-09-23 Environmental Board Minutes Page [1] CITY OF ISSAQUAH Environmental Board 6:30 PM Tibbetts Manor, 750 17th Ave. August 9, 2023 MINUTES NW, Issaquah

4. AGENDA ITEMS

Sustainable Purchasing Policy

Discussion · [30 mins] David Reedy, Sustainability Coordinator · packet pp.33–50

Topics: Climate

▶ Watch from 17:18 Open packet at p.33 ↗

Staff report:

Office of Sustainability 130 E Sunset Way | P.O. Box 1307 Issaquah, WA 98027 issaquahwa.gov

Comprehensive Plan - Climate Resilience and Environmental [75 mins] Stewardship Element (D)

Stacy Vynne McKinstry, Sustainability Manager David Reedy, Sustainability Coordinator · packet pp.51–83

Topics: Land UseClimate

▶ Watch from 1:09:42 Open packet at p.51 ↗

Staff report:

Office of Sustainability 130 E Sunset Way | P.O. Box 1307 Issaquah, WA 98027 issaquahwa.gov

5. REPORTS

Sustainability Incentives Report from Economic Development

packet pp.85–86

Topics: ClimateEconomic Development

Open packet at p.85 ↗

Staff report:

Economic Development 130 E Sunset Way | P.O. Box 1307 Issaquah, WA 98027 issaquahwa.gov

6PPD Report from Public Works

packet pp.87–88

Open packet at p.87 ↗

Staff report:

Office of Sustainability 130 E Sunset Way | P.O. Box 1307 Issaquah, WA 98027 issaquahwa.gov

Updated Environmental Board Workplan

packet pp.89–92

Open packet at p.89 ↗

Staff report:

additional offerings under the Community Energy Efficient Program grant;

3028 segments .txt ↗

0:02 ↗ and hit the recording

0:07 ↗ Chris welcome to the September 13th

0:10 ↗ meeting of the Issaquah environment

0:11 ↗ award I'm Jamie Finch and I'll be your

0:13 ↗ chair tonight due to the hybrid nature

0:16 ↗ of this meeting we will have some

0:17 ↗ members attending in person and others

0:19 ↗ by computer or phone for those attending

0:21 ↗ remotely or for meeting attendees uh

0:25 ↗ attending remotely please state your

0:26 ↗ name it's time for speaking and once you

0:29 ↗ are done please leave your microphone

0:32 ↗ yo please raise your hand if you have a

0:34 ↗ desire to speak and one of us in the

0:36 ↗ room or

0:38 ↗ um someone online hopefully can tell us

0:39 ↗ if we have missed it for those in person

0:42 ↗ please as we always do to your name tags

0:45 ↗ to decide when you would like to speak

0:48 ↗ um on certain topics we'll summarize

0:49 ↗ agreement around recommendations at the

0:52 ↗ end of the topic and note if there's any

0:54 ↗ dissent I think from there we will have

0:57 ↗ um

0:58 ↗ Stacy do you want to take us through or

1:00 ↗ Chris one of you two want to take us

1:02 ↗ through attendance yeah I can go ahead

1:04 ↗ and do roll call and apologies I am

1:06 ↗ having some tech issues so if I um

1:09 ↗ computer goes uh nuts I will just move

1:12 ↗ to my phone so bear with me

1:15 ↗ um all right so for a roll call Tom

1:16 ↗ Anderson

1:17 ↗ here Nancy Davidson

1:21 ↗ Jamie Finch

1:24 ↗ got Pandi

1:26 ↗ I believe praja is planning to join us

1:28 ↗ remotely

1:30 ↗ um uh Joy Lewis here

1:33 ↗ Ashwin Kanan

1:35 ↗ here

1:36 ↗ Ashwin manaharan

1:39 ↗ Don McWilliams has an excused absence

1:43 ↗ and newcome

1:46 ↗ Janet wall

1:48 ↗ uh Dixie bear

1:51 ↗ here

1:52 ↗ and Alex Lee tigner has an excuse

1:54 ↗ absence because we do have an action

1:58 ↗ item on the agenda today just wanted to

2:00 ↗ know we do have five regular members

2:02 ↗ here

2:03 ↗ um for that vote

2:08 ↗ next up uh approval of the minutes were

2:12 ↗ there any comments on the minutes that

2:14 ↗ were presented in the packet

2:16 ↗ thank you

2:18 ↗ hearing none those are approved with a

2:21 ↗ unan's consent next up we will move into

2:24 ↗ public comments

2:26 ↗ I know we have several people signed up

2:28 ↗ to speak

2:30 ↗ um for those that are coming in remotely

2:33 ↗ obviously please unmute your microphone

2:35 ↗ Stacy may need to do something to get

2:38 ↗ you ready but um

2:40 ↗ if not uh please unmute your microphone

2:42 ↗ when you're called on state your name

2:44 ↗ address in relationship to the city

2:47 ↗ um please try to link your comments to

2:48 ↗ five minutes and then mute your

2:51 ↗ microphone when done

2:52 ↗ um I think with that Stacy if you can

2:54 ↗ take us through uh public comment that

2:56 ↗ would be great great thanks Jamie yeah

2:58 ↗ and I did want to just note that we had

3:00 ↗ three written comments submitted from

3:04 ↗ Andrew mcclade

3:06 ↗ um from Connie Marsh on the comp plan

3:08 ↗ and from Ann Fletcher on the comp plan

3:10 ↗ and I believe we have Ann Fletcher and

3:12 ↗ Connie Marsh here tonight that wanted to

3:14 ↗ make public comment so and we do have

3:17 ↗ Jonathan in person to make comment as

3:20 ↗ well okay

3:23 ↗ great

3:24 ↗ um and we'll go ahead and start with you

3:29 ↗ okay can you hear me

3:31 ↗ yes yes great all right will good

3:34 ↗ evening it's nice to see you all

3:37 ↗ um I first of all wanted to

3:39 ↗ um thank the sustainability staff and

3:41 ↗ the environmental board uh for advancing

3:44 ↗ the implementation of the Issaquah

3:46 ↗ climate action plan

3:49 ↗ um and tonight especially with municipal

3:51 ↗ buildings and the sustainable purchasing

3:53 ↗ policies

3:55 ↗ um I really appreciate the work of um

3:58 ↗ creating this environmental stewardship

4:00 ↗ climate resilience element so mouthful

4:04 ↗ but um in the comprehensive plan and

4:08 ↗ that's what I wanted to talk about

4:09 ↗ tonight I know that it's really complex

4:12 ↗ because you're now integrating layers of

4:14 ↗ the climate plan this new state

4:17 ↗ legislation and other elements from from

4:19 ↗ the plan and other places and um and

4:22 ↗ then there's also evolving thinking

4:24 ↗ going on all the time so I know it's

4:26 ↗ complex and but I did work closely um on

4:29 ↗ the with the city on the plan and PCA

4:31 ↗ did so I was really interested in the

4:34 ↗ aspects of the plan that were being

4:37 ↗ added to the comprehensive plan

4:40 ↗ um I especially looked at the building

4:42 ↗ and energy goal and policies

4:46 ↗ um since that area is uh our biggest

4:48 ↗ greenhouse gas emitter and a really

4:51 ↗ difficult one to try to address and get

4:53 ↗ somewhere on

4:55 ↗ um and existing buildings are our

4:58 ↗ biggest emitter within that area that's

5:01 ↗ a tough area so when I was looking I

5:05 ↗ noticed that all but one of the climate

5:07 ↗ Plan Building energy targets are being

5:11 ↗ proposed for the comp plan

5:13 ↗ and two of my dismay the one missing

5:15 ↗ Target relates to existing buildings

5:20 ↗ um the missing Target says reduce

5:22 ↗ natural gas and fossil fuel use in

5:26 ↗ existing buildings by at least 20

5:27 ↗ percent by 2030 and 80 by 2050 compared

5:32 ↗ to the 2017 Baseline and this is also a

5:36 ↗ King County Target or at least it was at

5:38 ↗ the time that we adopted it

5:41 ↗ um

5:42 ↗ none of the other building section

5:44 ↗ targets covered this important area and

5:47 ↗ while the other targets like Energy

5:50 ↗ Efficiency and net zero emissions in new

5:53 ↗ buildings and Municipal Building

5:55 ↗ decarbonation are super important

5:57 ↗ I don't think any of them rise to the

5:59 ↗ level of drastically reducing natural

6:02 ↗ gas and fossil fuel use in existing

6:05 ↗ buildings

6:06 ↗ so it seems to me that if the other

6:07 ↗ three are policy level then an existing

6:10 ↗ building Target should also be included

6:13 ↗ in policy

6:15 ↗ so further down though I did look to see

6:17 ↗ if there was something else that might

6:19 ↗ relate and there was I found one policy

6:21 ↗ taken from the climate action plan that

6:24 ↗ it was a strategy in the plan though it

6:27 ↗ was not a Target and the strategy did

6:30 ↗ relate to new buildings in part

6:33 ↗ um this is strategy number two which is

6:35 ↗ Advanced building decarbonization and

6:38 ↗ ensure Issaquah is on track to meet

6:40 ↗ State goals and requirements by shifting

6:43 ↗ from natural gas to electricity in all

6:47 ↗ new and existing buildings

6:50 ↗ um now this strategy does mention State

6:52 ↗ goals but it does not specify a

6:55 ↗ measurable Target about existing

6:58 ↗ buildings similar to the other three

7:01 ↗ climate plan targets that were converted

7:04 ↗ into policies

7:06 ↗ so I think this connection to our

7:08 ↗ climate action plan needs to be

7:10 ↗ strengthened by adding a more

7:11 ↗ specifically measurable policy relating

7:15 ↗ to existing buildings and I think

7:16 ↗ there's several ways it could be done

7:18 ↗ the two that I thought of and you might

7:20 ↗ be think of other ways but it could be

7:22 ↗ that our climate

7:24 ↗ um our Issaquah climate action plan

7:25 ↗ Target 3 that I previously read could be

7:29 ↗ inserted as a policy or if that I mean

7:33 ↗ because I'm not sure why it wasn't put

7:35 ↗ in there maybe it conflicts a measurable

7:37 ↗ State Target or requirement and if

7:40 ↗ that's the case then the state Target

7:42 ↗ would are obviously override it and that

7:45 ↗ state specific State requirement could

7:48 ↗ be added into land use policy G5 and

7:53 ↗ just mention the specific Target

7:56 ↗ and I think then this would clarify how

7:59 ↗ this really crucial element of existing

8:01 ↗ buildings from our climate action plan

8:04 ↗ is being included at the policy level of

8:08 ↗ our comprehensive plan

8:10 ↗ so I hope that makes sense and I'm happy

8:13 ↗ to um you know talk with other people or

8:16 ↗ whatever about it later or after some

8:18 ↗ other time but I just wanted to mention

8:20 ↗ I just saw it this afternoon and thought

8:23 ↗ I better say something

8:26 ↗ thank you oh and and I'm Anne Fletcher

8:28 ↗ 255 Southeast Andrew Street and I'm also

8:33 ↗ a facilitator for climate uh people for

8:35 ↗ climate action thank you

8:39 ↗ thank you Anne

8:45 ↗ Jamie we had Connie Marsh

8:52 ↗ hi yes I'm assuming you can hear me

8:57 ↗ so and Clyde barking

9:00 ↗ um

9:01 ↗ so comprehensive Connie Marsh live on

9:04 ↗ Squad comprehensive plan has been

9:06 ↗ fascinating because I've been watching

9:08 ↗ the varying committees commissions going

9:11 ↗ through it and one of the things that's

9:13 ↗ of concern is that the

9:18 ↗ code language that we have in most of

9:20 ↗ our Municipal codes

9:22 ↗ reflects the need for guidance language

9:25 ↗ in the comprehensive plan and so in

9:28 ↗ their introductory elements they say

9:33 ↗ um and as supported in the comprehensive

9:36 ↗ plan

9:37 ↗ things like that so Title 18 is an easy

9:40 ↗ great example but what staff seems to be

9:43 ↗ doing is stripping guidance language out

9:46 ↗ of the comprehensive plan because they

9:49 ↗ say that guidance language is in the

9:51 ↗ code

9:52 ↗ so what that does is that creates this

9:55 ↗ odd Loop when you're reading the code

9:58 ↗ and there's nothing supporting the

10:01 ↗ specific language

10:03 ↗ in the comprehensive plan

10:06 ↗ be so where did it come from what does

10:10 ↗ it mean it's not helpful

10:12 ↗ so often when you're dealing with the

10:15 ↗ code language is hard and you have to go

10:17 ↗ back and say you know what really did

10:19 ↗ that mean you're supposed to go to the

10:20 ↗ comprehensive plan and that is supposed

10:22 ↗ to give you the general concept of what

10:27 ↗ you're aiming for

10:28 ↗ so I think we need to be careful not to

10:31 ↗ strip that guidance language out of the

10:34 ↗ comprehensive plan because often

10:36 ↗ we need it when we're doing

10:38 ↗ implementation like for climate action

10:42 ↗ where and how are we supposed to get it

10:48 ↗ done

10:49 ↗ instead of just say hey we want to do it

10:52 ↗ now what is the comprehensive plan say

10:54 ↗ does the comprehensive plan say that

10:56 ↗ that we're supposed to be looking at the

10:58 ↗ school district we're supposed to be

11:00 ↗ looking at washdot we're supposed to be

11:01 ↗ figuring those things out with them in

11:05 ↗ some sort of specific way

11:08 ↗ um are those climate goals Issaquah

11:10 ↗ government the City of Issaquah

11:15 ↗ private and public

11:18 ↗ in Issaquah I don't really know because

11:21 ↗ how do we get where we want to go if we

11:23 ↗ have no control over washed out we have

11:25 ↗ no control over the school district and

11:27 ↗ we have very limited control over

11:29 ↗ existing private development

11:31 ↗ so I need clarification

11:35 ↗ um if we're going to set these goals

11:37 ↗ then

11:39 ↗ then how are we going to bring these

11:41 ↗ other people to the table so that

11:43 ↗ Issaquah can can get to them

11:45 ↗ comprehensive plan is the place to set

11:48 ↗ those negotiations and our aims and

11:52 ↗ efforts because then when city council

11:54 ↗ has to look at the school district

11:56 ↗ proposal and say well you know School

11:58 ↗ District

12:00 ↗ are we we say we want this

12:02 ↗ and you aren't given us that and while

12:06 ↗ our coach says you can do it our

12:08 ↗ comprehensive plan says that isn't

12:10 ↗ really what we want you to do so give us

12:12 ↗ a little more it gives us a negotiation

12:14 ↗ tool to make things better until we can

12:17 ↗ get the code to catch up with ourselves

12:19 ↗ so when you read this think to your just

12:22 ↗ think to yourself okay from what I know

12:24 ↗ is this going to give enough guidance

12:27 ↗ language for staff to make decisions

12:31 ↗ and um I know it's really awkward and

12:33 ↗ it's hard and you have to remember it

12:35 ↗ all and I apologize that it's so awkward

12:38 ↗ that

12:39 ↗ please if you can thank you

12:44 ↗ thank you

12:47 ↗ Jonathan now uh you are up yeah

12:52 ↗ um I want to ask a bit of a protocol

12:53 ↗ first my statements have nothing to do

12:57 ↗ with the content of the topics that

12:59 ↗ you've just been discussing uh is that

13:01 ↗ something that can be brought up or or

13:04 ↗ is it summer

13:05 ↗ um should I hold that for some other

13:06 ↗ time yeah that's fine you can feel free

13:09 ↗ to okay okay my name is Jonathan Smith

13:12 ↗ I'll keep it short my name is Jonathan

13:13 ↗ Smith I live at 1099 Northwest Glenwood

13:16 ↗ Place in Issaquah been there about 25

13:19 ↗ years uh I run a litter cleanup program

13:23 ↗ in Issaquah we meet monthly at the post

13:26 ↗ office

13:27 ↗ um I just want to note two observations

13:29 ↗ that I have made

13:31 ↗ um and I'd like uh just to talk about

13:34 ↗ these for a minute and request that you

13:37 ↗ um email your state representatives

13:39 ↗ Ramos and Cowan plus Senator Malik on

13:43 ↗ these topics

13:44 ↗ um the first one I've noticed recently

13:47 ↗ is the the plastic bag band

13:51 ↗ needs to be strengthened

13:53 ↗ um uh recently uh I'm starting our group

13:58 ↗ is starting to see a lot of the new

14:00 ↗ plastic heavyweight bags the ones that

14:03 ↗ are marked reusable littering the

14:05 ↗ community

14:06 ↗ um

14:07 ↗ um before that I felt that the bag ban

14:10 ↗ was doing a great job of

14:13 ↗ reducing that Solid Waste in the

14:16 ↗ community

14:17 ↗ but now businesses are rapidly uh

14:21 ↗ working to kind of get around that law

14:24 ↗ by producing bags that are heavier

14:26 ↗ weight

14:27 ↗ plus

14:29 ↗ marked reusable

14:32 ↗ um

14:33 ↗ my statement is that uh I how many my

14:36 ↗ question for you is how many

14:39 ↗ um reusable bags does a does a household

14:44 ↗ need

14:45 ↗ and I think

14:47 ↗ six to eight six to eight maybe six to

14:49 ↗ twelve this is all you need for years

14:52 ↗ right we use the same reusable bags over

14:55 ↗ and over we don't need businesses to

14:58 ↗ continually pump these bags into the

15:00 ↗ environment

15:01 ↗ okay so my request there is that you um

15:05 ↗ would write your email your

15:08 ↗ representatives Carolyn and Ramos plus

15:12 ↗ Senator Mark mullet requesting them to

15:15 ↗ revise that bag name the second comment

15:19 ↗ I want to make is that um we desperately

15:22 ↗ need a Statewide container deposit bill

15:28 ↗ um or the next legislative session we

15:30 ↗ had one in this legislative session

15:33 ↗ packaged into an environmental Bill and

15:35 ↗ it was cut and they have a lot of other

15:37 ↗ things they're working on

15:39 ↗ um but

15:41 ↗ we have a tremendous number of

15:44 ↗ single-use

15:45 ↗ containers plastic bottles and aluminum

15:48 ↗ cans that are

15:51 ↗ littering our communities and we are the

15:56 ↗ only state on the west coast that does

15:59 ↗ not have a con container deposit Bill

16:04 ↗ Oregon was the first one to have it it's

16:06 ↗ had one for approximately 50 years

16:08 ↗ California has one Hawaii has one and

16:13 ↗ um

16:14 ↗ British Columbia I'm not sure if Alaska

16:17 ↗ does but again I'd like you to email

16:20 ↗ your state representatives

16:22 ↗ Bill Ramos and Lisa Cowan plus Senator

16:24 ↗ Mark mullet and request that this be

16:26 ↗ added to the next legislative session uh

16:29 ↗ next year in 2024. that's a short

16:33 ↗ session so we need to get more people

16:35 ↗ bringing this up if these things are

16:38 ↗ important to you uh please take some

16:39 ↗ action thank you

16:42 ↗ thank you Jonathan

16:44 ↗ I think Stacy's that that's all of our

16:46 ↗ public comments correct

16:48 ↗ um Jamie we did have one other member of

16:50 ↗ the public join Steve Pereira

16:53 ↗ um Steve did you want to make public

16:54 ↗ comment

17:00 ↗ all right not hearing from you Steve if

17:02 ↗ you do want to make public comment go

17:04 ↗ ahead and send me a note or send the

17:07 ↗ group a note in the chat and we can make

17:09 ↗ some room for you later in the meeting

17:12 ↗ great thank you Stacy so I think with

17:14 ↗ that uh I will comment uh is closed and

17:18 ↗ we'll move on to our agenda items first

17:20 ↗ one being Municipal Building

17:21 ↗ decarbonization resolution

17:27 ↗ all right

17:29 ↗ um can everyone see the presentation

17:33 ↗ yes

17:34 ↗ okay

17:36 ↗ so

17:37 ↗ um I didn't change the name to

17:38 ↗ sustainable buildings which is an

17:40 ↗ oversight on my part but um

17:43 ↗ this presentation is similar to what I

17:46 ↗ brought to you last week a little bit

17:48 ↗ updated since things or last month a

17:50 ↗ little bit updated since things have

17:52 ↗ continued to evolve over a month

17:57 ↗ um and I'm gonna go through it fairly

17:59 ↗ fast since we did have some time to talk

18:02 ↗ about it next or last month but we'll we

18:05 ↗ have the the time to kind of address any

18:06 ↗ questions or

18:08 ↗ um thoughts as as they arise

18:11 ↗ so

18:14 ↗ um

18:16 ↗ presentation goals

18:18 ↗ um are to seek a board recommendation

18:22 ↗ for advancing the municipal building

18:24 ↗ decarbonization resolution as well as to

18:27 ↗ provide a space to update the board on

18:30 ↗ existing

18:31 ↗ facilities work Municipal Building work

18:34 ↗ and answer any questions on on that work

18:39 ↗ so again buildings are the biggest

18:42 ↗ greenhouse gas emitter in uh the city

18:46 ↗ and so thinking about us as our our

18:49 ↗ Municipal operations really addressing

18:52 ↗ um the emissions coming from our

18:53 ↗ buildings is really critical for us to

18:56 ↗ reach our icap goals

18:59 ↗ so I wanted to recognize we did have

19:02 ↗ time for a few questions last

19:05 ↗ um last meeting and so I wanted to kind

19:07 ↗ of address those first so I was able to

19:10 ↗ update the resolution name to reflect

19:12 ↗ that it is focused on

19:14 ↗ um existing municipal buildings

19:17 ↗ question for you do you want to take

19:19 ↗ questions as we go or

19:21 ↗ um leave them to the end

19:23 ↗ I'm happy to take questions as we go on

19:25 ↗ this one

19:26 ↗ so please let me know if there are

19:28 ↗ questions because I don't have a a super

19:30 ↗ Broad View

19:33 ↗ um so the resolution name has been

19:36 ↗ updated to reflect that it is focused on

19:39 ↗ building decarbonization

19:41 ↗ um that doesn't mean that we're not

19:42 ↗ doing the decarbonization work for

19:44 ↗ fleets and other facilities but this

19:47 ↗ resolution is focused on our existing

19:49 ↗ municipal buildings

19:52 ↗ um the energy audits that uh were

19:55 ↗ referenced uh in the last presentation

19:58 ↗ and that are kind of built into this

19:59 ↗ whole process of

20:01 ↗ um thinking through how we can

20:03 ↗ decarbonize our buildings and address uh

20:07 ↗ energy use in our buildings we are going

20:09 ↗ to start with uh our larger buildings

20:12 ↗ first because those are the largest

20:14 ↗ um

20:15 ↗ uh largest energy users

20:19 ↗ um out of our our existing buildings so

20:22 ↗ that's like our community center our

20:24 ↗ pool

20:25 ↗ um the city hall and police department

20:28 ↗ um however the goal as part of this is

20:31 ↗ to do energy audits for our smaller

20:34 ↗ buildings and pair those with our

20:36 ↗ decarbonization assessment um to the

20:37 ↗ best of our ability so that we are

20:40 ↗ identifying the opportunities for

20:43 ↗ reducing energy use and reducing

20:45 ↗ greenhouse gas emissions from both our

20:47 ↗ large buildings and our small buildings

20:49 ↗ because you know the greatest greenhouse

20:51 ↗ gas missions could be coming from a

20:53 ↗ small building

20:55 ↗ um with a change of equipment so we want

20:57 ↗ to make sure we're kind of capturing

20:58 ↗ that

20:59 ↗ um but we are starting with the big

21:01 ↗ buildings first

21:03 ↗ and then the last uh kind of question I

21:06 ↗ wanted to address I talked over with our

21:09 ↗ staff our facility staff so pump

21:12 ↗ stations are not currently part of this

21:14 ↗ facilities uh the facility condition

21:17 ↗ assessment

21:18 ↗ um and they are not part of the city

21:20 ↗ decarbonization assessment

21:23 ↗ however

21:24 ↗ um I've connected with our Public Works

21:27 ↗ staff and our water utilities manager

21:30 ↗ and we're exploring the uh exploring

21:34 ↗ doing a uh an energy audit specifically

21:37 ↗ for our pump stations and our water

21:39 ↗ conveyance infrastructure

21:42 ↗ um it's managed out of Public Works

21:43 ↗ instead of our facilities team which is

21:45 ↗ kind of why

21:47 ↗ they aren't happening concurrently just

21:50 ↗ because they they are happening kind of

21:52 ↗ in separate silos

21:54 ↗ um we can still do the energy audits

21:56 ↗ through some of the same systems that we

21:58 ↗ were going to do the building audits uh

22:00 ↗ namely through

22:02 ↗ um some energy performance Contracting

22:04 ↗ with the state so that's kind of a good

22:07 ↗ good news there

22:12 ↗ hi David this is Nancy Davidson and

22:15 ↗ it raised this and this is a city-wide

22:18 ↗ resolution it's not just

22:22 ↗ um being developed based on uh Community

22:26 ↗ facilities though all these are

22:27 ↗ Community facilities and I personally am

22:30 ↗ trouble that we are not doing all the

22:32 ↗ city buildings in this resolution uh I

22:36 ↗ think granted it's a different

22:37 ↗ department than the ones that manage our

22:39 ↗ facilities but they're city-owned

22:41 ↗ facilities paid for by rate payers

22:43 ↗ therefore they should be subject to the

22:45 ↗ same criteria so if we are trying to say

22:48 ↗ we're trying to be a green City we are

22:50 ↗ agreeing City we're not just

22:53 ↗ you know the community facilities like

22:55 ↗ the

22:56 ↗ um pool but it also includes buildings

22:59 ↗ like our pump stations and our lift

23:01 ↗ stations and our other facilities and I

23:04 ↗ think we need to I personally believe

23:06 ↗ that we're not doing

23:09 ↗ why do this resolution if we're not

23:11 ↗ going to do it for everything

23:12 ↗ why what is the rationale behind

23:15 ↗ separating out what Public Works is

23:18 ↗ doing versus what all the rest of the

23:19 ↗ city is doing it's one city it's

23:22 ↗ overseen by a mayor and in my opinion it

23:25 ↗ needs to be included in the resolution

23:27 ↗ they may use a separate Contracting

23:29 ↗ mechanism to do this they may do it in a

23:32 ↗ separate process

23:34 ↗ but the outcome and the measurements

23:36 ↗ that we're trying to take to give to the

23:38 ↗ public about what we're doing to try and

23:40 ↗ decarbonize it decarbonize our footprint

23:42 ↗ and to get to a Greener environment

23:44 ↗ includes all of the city's

23:46 ↗ infrastructure so

23:50 ↗ um

23:51 ↗ personally just so you know I'm not

23:53 ↗ going to support moving forward until we

23:55 ↗ get a resolution that covers all City

23:56 ↗ facilities

23:58 ↗ you just need to be aware that

24:01 ↗ thank you

24:04 ↗ I I actually thank you I have a thank

24:07 ↗ you chair I have a question I do want to

24:09 ↗ Echo that I have similar concerns uh to

24:11 ↗ Nancy and um I was curious what I saw

24:14 ↗ the exception

24:15 ↗ um what other exceptions are there I'm

24:17 ↗ not sure if you've got my question David

24:18 ↗ I'd send to Stacy but I'm curious we

24:21 ↗ have a number of municipal buildings

24:22 ↗ that are co-managed and owned for

24:25 ↗ different services and I'm curious is

24:27 ↗ there is there kind of a list for

24:29 ↗ instance of things that were like well

24:30 ↗ but the county manages that well but

24:32 ↗ that's fire so that's a whole separate

24:34 ↗ thing and I was curious basically my

24:36 ↗ question is what's also not on the list

24:40 ↗ I imagine there's more than just our

24:42 ↗ water uh commands and our Pump House

24:45 ↗ question

24:47 ↗ um I don't have a great sense on

24:50 ↗ um

24:51 ↗ exactly what is not on the list

24:54 ↗ um what is on the list for the

24:57 ↗ decarbonization assessment currently uh

25:00 ↗ is what is on the facilities condition

25:02 ↗ assessment so that would include almost

25:06 ↗ all of our buildings regardless on if we

25:09 ↗ are the operator of those uh buildings

25:13 ↗ so so for instance that does include

25:16 ↗ some buildings that are leased or rented

25:18 ↗ from uh from the city

25:20 ↗ um

25:22 ↗ I

25:23 ↗ uh can do some digging to find out if

25:27 ↗ there are other uh buildings that are

25:30 ↗ not on the list

25:32 ↗ um

25:32 ↗ but I I don't think there are going to

25:36 ↗ be many because I believe most of the uh

25:41 ↗ everything other than kind of our

25:43 ↗ utility

25:44 ↗ um

25:45 ↗ other than our utility structures and

25:48 ↗ infrastructure is managed by our

25:50 ↗ facilities team okay so thank you David

25:54 ↗ that's super helpful um

25:59 ↗ curious though I do know that you want

26:01 ↗ to have a vote on the resolution tonight

26:03 ↗ so I don't know that it's super helpful

26:04 ↗ but I think it would be interesting to

26:05 ↗ have a list to know

26:08 ↗ um what structures are not included so

26:10 ↗ that they don't select

26:12 ↗ right we are able to then be able to

26:14 ↗ reach out to whatever team is managing

26:16 ↗ them

26:17 ↗ um and again I know we have a lot of

26:18 ↗ different Partnerships that we have that

26:20 ↗ extend through and being able to make

26:22 ↗ sure that

26:23 ↗ um there's a plan for a plan to be able

26:25 ↗ to hit everything if that makes sense

26:27 ↗ thank you

26:29 ↗ enjoy and uh Nancy thank you all

26:33 ↗ so I know the city owns some houses in

26:35 ↗ the city I'm aware of a couple of them

26:37 ↗ that they are are those included in this

26:39 ↗ decarbonization assessment

26:42 ↗ abilities team so yeah

26:44 ↗ sorry I didn't hear that you cut out

26:46 ↗ sorry David

26:48 ↗ yes they are included

26:50 ↗ so I would offer to you a suggestion of

26:52 ↗ where you could find out all the

26:53 ↗ buildings are located that the city owns

26:56 ↗ and one place that they should be all

26:58 ↗ insured

26:59 ↗ the city has insurance so if you get a

27:01 ↗ copy of all the insured facilities by

27:03 ↗ the city you will be able to locate all

27:05 ↗ the buildings that are under that just

27:07 ↗ that I offer that for you

27:09 ↗ thank you and I appreciate that I think

27:11 ↗ I do have the full list of uh buildings

27:15 ↗ operated I think not on that list might

27:18 ↗ be just some of the that utility

27:20 ↗ infrastructure

27:22 ↗ um

27:23 ↗ but I'll uh find those lists and figure

27:27 ↗ out kind of what what is not included

27:29 ↗ okay thank you

27:33 ↗ um

27:36 ↗ oh please please yes

27:40 ↗ so as far as the other infrastructure

27:43 ↗ that's not on was the original plan to

27:46 ↗ have a separate resolution for that or

27:49 ↗ have a separate category for that

27:52 ↗ and um do you know the thinking behind

27:54 ↗ that

27:56 ↗ yeah so

28:00 ↗ I mean

28:01 ↗ The Pump Station infrastructure that is

28:04 ↗ not on

28:05 ↗ um there was knots uh I do not believe

28:08 ↗ that there is the plan for a resolution

28:11 ↗ um at this time

28:13 ↗ um

28:14 ↗ we are developing our plan to do the

28:18 ↗ work

28:19 ↗ um and what I can explore doing is

28:22 ↗ um including our pump stations within

28:25 ↗ the decarbonization

28:27 ↗ um scope of work

28:30 ↗ um we'll have to see if we the money

28:32 ↗ that we set aside is enough for that for

28:34 ↗ for this current round

28:36 ↗ um and if if it's not we would seek to

28:39 ↗ do do that in a future round

28:42 ↗ um but as part of kind of the energy

28:44 ↗ audits that we would do for our pump

28:46 ↗ stations that would uh look at kind of

28:48 ↗ what is operating well how can we

28:51 ↗ improve the Energy Efficiency of the

28:54 ↗ pump station Motors

28:55 ↗ um and then as well as if there's any

28:58 ↗ um decarbonization or Energy Efficiency

29:00 ↗ options within uh The Pump Station

29:02 ↗ buildings themselves

29:04 ↗ um although in talking with our water

29:06 ↗ utilities manager it seems like those

29:08 ↗ buildings

29:10 ↗ um

29:11 ↗ don't the buildings themselves don't

29:14 ↗ generally use a lot of energy it's

29:15 ↗ mostly The Pump Station uh Motors and uh

29:19 ↗ that infrastructure that's the kind of

29:21 ↗ the heaviest energy use in those

29:23 ↗ stations

29:25 ↗ thank you David I also wanted to say

29:27 ↗ that I really love the strong language

29:30 ↗ um I really loved how you worded the

29:32 ↗ resolution it feels very

29:34 ↗ um strong and powerful

29:37 ↗ thank you

29:39 ↗ all right David I think that's all the

29:41 ↗ comments

29:45 ↗ um

29:47 ↗ so this

29:51 ↗ um this is again just kind of showing

29:53 ↗ where we're looking here there's the

29:56 ↗ different

29:56 ↗ um Avenues and we're really focused on

29:59 ↗ the existing municipal buildings

30:02 ↗ this is uh a non-complete list of some

30:05 ↗ of the buildings work that we're doing

30:08 ↗ um you know the highlighted ones are

30:10 ↗ kind of what's included in this

30:11 ↗ presentation so the decarbonization

30:14 ↗ assessment is focused on kind of the

30:16 ↗ fourth highlighted bullet

30:18 ↗ um but we are doing that in tandem with

30:19 ↗ our facilities condition assessment the

30:21 ↗ energy benchmarking

30:23 ↗ um and then preliminary energy audits

30:26 ↗ um and then I also want to note that

30:28 ↗ even though these are kind of all these

30:29 ↗ assessments we're planning on doing this

30:31 ↗ that we are currently doing

30:33 ↗ um and that will go through the rest of

30:34 ↗ the fall and into the into winter and

30:37 ↗ next year

30:38 ↗ um that doesn't stop us from pursuing uh

30:41 ↗ individual projects when we are able

30:44 ↗ um so there are still decarbonization

30:46 ↗ individual projects and preparing for

30:49 ↗ things like renewable energy in the

30:51 ↗ works even at the same time as many of

30:53 ↗ these projects

30:57 ↗ um and the whole point of this effort is

30:59 ↗ for our municipal buildings by stacking

31:02 ↗ all of these different types of

31:04 ↗ Assessments on top of each other we

31:06 ↗ should have a much better idea on what

31:09 ↗ investments we can make where and when

31:12 ↗ we will need to make them

31:15 ↗ um Jamie submitted a great uh question

31:17 ↗ around kind of what we how we currently

31:19 ↗ prioritize projects and my understanding

31:22 ↗ is that uh there's there's a mix of

31:25 ↗ different methods and you know the one

31:27 ↗ of the big issues is uh

31:30 ↗ you know what is um what is in critical

31:33 ↗ condition and what needs to be changed

31:34 ↗ right away gets gets a lot of attention

31:38 ↗ um but then there are there is kind of

31:40 ↗ that long-term planning based on the the

31:42 ↗ CIP process

31:44 ↗ um and some of the projects that have

31:46 ↗ gone into the CIP process

31:48 ↗ um are based on the expertise of our

31:51 ↗ facilities team based on

31:54 ↗ um Community priorities and uh whether

31:57 ↗ or not they've kind of the projects have

31:59 ↗ been kind of pushed down the line in the

32:01 ↗ past

32:02 ↗ um

32:03 ↗ this whole process right now will give

32:06 ↗ us a better sense of what actually needs

32:09 ↗ to happen at any given point

32:11 ↗ um so what pieces of equipment are

32:14 ↗ really at their end of the life or when

32:15 ↗ that end of life will be

32:18 ↗ um what pieces of equipment change out

32:20 ↗ will provide us the greatest greenhouse

32:22 ↗ gas emissions reductions Etc

32:28 ↗ um do I have any questions before I move

32:29 ↗ on

32:32 ↗ one note David we are getting close to

32:35 ↗ the time we had a lot of this topic so

32:37 ↗ anything obviously we don't want to be

32:39 ↗ too fast but anything we can do to get

32:41 ↗ through as quickly as possible to be

32:42 ↗ great

32:43 ↗ sounds good

32:44 ↗ yeah so I'm gonna skip these four slides

32:47 ↗ which kind of go a little bit more into

32:49 ↗ depth into each one of the types of

32:51 ↗ Assessments we're doing and Skip to this

32:53 ↗ which is what is part of the municipal

32:56 ↗ uh decarbonization resolution Municipal

32:59 ↗ Building decarbonization resolution

33:02 ↗ so it directs the city to inventory City

33:04 ↗ facilities and evaluate feasibility of

33:06 ↗ retrofitting existing buildings to

33:08 ↗ become all-electric by 2030. it directs

33:11 ↗ the city to explore opportunities to

33:12 ↗ collaborate with other entities and it

33:14 ↗ directs the city to make recommendations

33:16 ↗ on next steps following the results of

33:19 ↗ the layered assessments so facilities

33:21 ↗ condition assessment energy Audits and

33:23 ↗ decarbonization assessment

33:28 ↗ um

33:30 ↗ so

33:32 ↗ this is just noting that as we're doing

33:35 ↗ these assessments we're still pursuing

33:37 ↗ individual projects and so I am happy to

33:40 ↗ bring it to the action stage and I know

33:42 ↗ Stacy has the resolution

33:46 ↗ up is that still

33:48 ↗ yes if we want to do any live edits so

33:51 ↗ if there's any live edits we can we can

33:54 ↗ work on those now

33:58 ↗ okay

33:59 ↗ and just for a reminder on on General

34:02 ↗ process that we're going to follow

34:04 ↗ um I think if there's any questions now

34:07 ↗ um please ask questions now or if you

34:09 ↗ have any general comments at some point

34:11 ↗ we will we are taking action on this so

34:15 ↗ we will need a motion on the options

34:16 ↗ that that uh that were provided and then

34:20 ↗ we'll have steps uh leading from that uh

34:24 ↗ based on the type of motion that is in

34:26 ↗ any

34:27 ↗ step so

34:29 ↗ I think from there I saw Joy you had a

34:32 ↗ commoner question I have a quick comment

34:35 ↗ um

34:36 ↗ uh voting um I I would like to voice my

34:39 ↗ support for this resolution and I'd like

34:41 ↗ to also uh make a comment that's to say

34:44 ↗ that

34:45 ↗ um you know not all electricity is green

34:47 ↗ and friendly and you know where we get

34:49 ↗ our energy matters and while this

34:51 ↗ resolution isn't necessarily the place

34:53 ↗ to do that I'd like to put a pin in our

34:56 ↗ follow-up of having further language to

34:59 ↗ be able to Define where our electricity

35:02 ↗ and how it's how it's being generated

35:03 ↗ and being able to track that process

35:05 ↗ through PSE and not losing sight because

35:07 ↗ sometimes targets can feel really nice

35:09 ↗ and they're not really where we want to

35:11 ↗ go so I just wanted to again it's not

35:13 ↗ related that's our language we're voting

35:15 ↗ on tonight but it's a relevant part of

35:16 ↗ it thank you

35:18 ↗ Joy uh Nancy go ahead

35:21 ↗ so you know David in reading the

35:23 ↗ resolution section one States the city

35:26 ↗ is directed to inventory city-owned

35:27 ↗ buildings that use fossil fuels and

35:29 ↗ evaluate the feasibility of retrofitting

35:32 ↗ these existing city-owned buildings to

35:34 ↗ become all-electric by 2030. so that

35:37 ↗ would include pump stations and lift

35:39 ↗ stations those are city-owned facilities

35:41 ↗ in my opinion so um

35:45 ↗ so if we approve this that will happen

35:48 ↗ right

35:50 ↗ I believe so agriculture counseling gets

35:54 ↗ approved I just wanted to point that out

35:55 ↗ throughout your presentation also you

35:57 ↗ said all many points you pointed out

36:00 ↗ that it was all City buildings and so

36:02 ↗ pump stations and lift stations are City

36:04 ↗ buildings as well so the only place that

36:07 ↗ you kind of excluded those was on that

36:09 ↗ one slide that's why I'm asking all

36:11 ↗ these questions to try and get so I can

36:13 ↗ support this but it's my understanding

36:16 ↗ or else I have to amend this to make

36:17 ↗ sure that it's clear that it's all City

36:19 ↗ buildings

36:21 ↗ not just

36:23 ↗ um the ones that we all

36:25 ↗ um like City Halls and stuff so

36:28 ↗ um

36:28 ↗ is that am I correct in reading this

36:31 ↗ resolution and what it states

36:34 ↗ you are correct

36:36 ↗ um

36:38 ↗ and there's no explosions for pump

36:40 ↗ stations anywhere else that I've missed

36:42 ↗ in reading this correct in the

36:44 ↗ resolution one more time are there any

36:46 ↗ exclusions that I've missed in this

36:48 ↗ resolution to exclude pump stations and

36:50 ↗ lift stations owned by the city

36:53 ↗ oh there are no pieces that exclude pump

36:55 ↗ stations or lift stations

36:57 ↗ um one thing I will note

36:59 ↗ um

37:02 ↗ um

37:06 ↗ sorry I apologize I'm taking a look

37:09 ↗ again

37:10 ↗ um the

37:11 ↗ decarbonization assessment uh

37:15 ↗ one kind of slightly funky thing is

37:18 ↗ there are I think one or two buildings

37:21 ↗ that are not going to be included based

37:23 ↗ on future use of those buildings

37:27 ↗ um

37:28 ↗ essentially if they are surplused by the

37:32 ↗ city in the very near future or uh

37:36 ↗ uh I think they're that that's the main

37:38 ↗ the main reason so I think there are

37:40 ↗ kind of that

37:41 ↗ one or two buildings that would be

37:43 ↗ excluded and I know that's kind of

37:44 ↗ separate from the pump station

37:45 ↗ conversation but I believe the way

37:48 ↗ you're reading it I would agree pump

37:49 ↗ stations are included they essentially

37:52 ↗ are not included within the facility's

37:55 ↗ condition assessment

37:57 ↗ um but they uh would be included as part

37:59 ↗ of the decarbonization assessment and

38:01 ↗ that work

38:04 ↗ okay

38:05 ↗ and those buildings that are being

38:08 ↗ surplused by the city that you talked

38:10 ↗ about

38:11 ↗ um I assume you put a timeline timeline

38:14 ↗ on those like in the next year they

38:15 ↗ would be surplused by the city in Seoul

38:17 ↗ because I mean the energy use is

38:19 ↗ continuing in all of those buildings so

38:21 ↗ they have to be heated so that they

38:22 ↗ don't have frozen pipes and things like

38:24 ↗ that in the winter and my concern is

38:26 ↗ that you know if you don't put a

38:28 ↗ timeline on it every building in the

38:29 ↗ city will be Surplus at some time

38:32 ↗ sorry these are these are buildings that

38:34 ↗ are surplused in the near future I don't

38:37 ↗ think I can say right now with

38:39 ↗ confidence that it's exactly one year

38:41 ↗ but um they are buildings that are being

38:45 ↗ looked to be

38:47 ↗ Surplus soon

38:49 ↗ [Music]

38:51 ↗ okay thank you

38:53 ↗ all right go ahead Tom

38:55 ↗ uh yeah so joyous comments so rang a

38:58 ↗ bell with me because in the um

39:01 ↗ uh the material

39:04 ↗ later on in the meeting there is one of

39:06 ↗ the points there our policy uh where it

39:09 ↗ says achieved Net Zero

39:11 ↗ achieve 100 renewable electricity by

39:14 ↗ 2025 in municipal buildings

39:19 ↗ um and so that would imply that we're

39:22 ↗ going to be running on green electricity

39:24 ↗ entirely by 2025 which is almost

39:27 ↗ tomorrow uh

39:29 ↗ um

39:32 ↗ is that am I reading this wrong or uh

39:35 ↗ you are reading it correctly so the way

39:38 ↗ um

39:39 ↗ we anticipate meeting that um we

39:42 ↗ currently get around 98 of our

39:44 ↗ electricity through the green direct

39:46 ↗ program

39:48 ↗ um which essentially allows the city to

39:50 ↗ pay into

39:52 ↗ um and uh receive our electricity from

39:55 ↗ renewable sources uh from PSE so there's

39:59 ↗ specifically a solar farm in Lund I

40:03 ↗ think

40:04 ↗ um and then a wind farm uh so we have

40:06 ↗ currently 98 of our electricity needs

40:09 ↗ are met by renewable sources

40:12 ↗ um and we are figuring out the last two

40:14 ↗ percent and then as as you know this

40:17 ↗ decarbonization assessment and this work

40:19 ↗ kind of continues our electricity use is

40:22 ↗ likely to increase

40:24 ↗ um as we transition more more equipment

40:27 ↗ to Electric as we put in electric

40:29 ↗ vehicle Chargers Etc so that's something

40:31 ↗ that we're going to have to continue to

40:32 ↗ monitor to make sure that that increased

40:34 ↗ electricity demand continues to be met

40:36 ↗ by either renewable energy on Municipal

40:41 ↗ Properties or um through programs like

40:44 ↗ the green direct program

40:46 ↗ okay thank you

40:49 ↗ I had a couple of comments

40:51 ↗ um one is a question and then probably

40:55 ↗ will be a comment but uh is our air

40:58 ↗ ceiling insulation and other aspects of

41:00 ↗ efficiency included in the assessments

41:04 ↗ sorry I forgot to respond to that yes

41:06 ↗ that's included in energy audits okay

41:08 ↗ yeah I think that's critical because I

41:11 ↗ do think it and it also I think we

41:13 ↗ should make sure we don't

41:14 ↗ think about these just as the

41:16 ↗ departmentization

41:18 ↗ it being that in itself because I do

41:21 ↗ think that one implication of a lot of

41:23 ↗ heat pumps for example is

41:26 ↗ getting buildings that are efficient is

41:28 ↗ incredibly important where you can

41:30 ↗ oversize a gas boiler

41:32 ↗ um you can't do that or if you do it

41:34 ↗ it's much more expensive on a heat pump

41:36 ↗ so I do think that that's going to be a

41:37 ↗ really important element

41:39 ↗ I'm not I don't recall seeing that as

41:43 ↗ detailed and is that currently mentioned

41:45 ↗ in the resolution

41:49 ↗ not oversizing equipment or you know the

41:52 ↗ the like installation air ceiling and

41:55 ↗ efficiency aspect

41:57 ↗ it is not um because uh

42:02 ↗ and this is I think kind of one of just

42:04 ↗ the the funky aspects of how this has

42:07 ↗ been done this resolution is focused on

42:10 ↗ the decarbonization uh assessment and

42:13 ↗ the air insulation and weatherization

42:16 ↗ that type of stuff would be part of the

42:17 ↗ energy audits which are a slightly

42:20 ↗ separate assessment

42:23 ↗ okay so this this resolution is just

42:26 ↗ covering the first step or the first

42:29 ↗ step of the process it's not actually

42:32 ↗ committing the city to doing the other

42:33 ↗ steps

42:35 ↗ uh it is right it's committing the city

42:37 ↗ to do the decarbonization assessment

42:39 ↗ which is actually in kind of the the

42:42 ↗ scheme of facilities work it's the last

42:45 ↗ piece right so before this comes the

42:49 ↗ energy audits which is helping us think

42:50 ↗ about how do we reduce our energy use

42:52 ↗ first off and then the decarbonization

42:55 ↗ is thinking how do then we transition

42:57 ↗ the equipment to all electric or reduce

43:00 ↗ or eliminate fossil fuel use

43:03 ↗ yeah I do think that's I understand why

43:07 ↗ we have done it this way but it feels

43:09 ↗ like an important aspect that at least

43:12 ↗ should be mentioned

43:14 ↗ um

43:15 ↗ so it sounds like we're going to do it

43:17 ↗ but

43:19 ↗ um it just would question whether we

43:22 ↗ should have that included as uh in the

43:24 ↗ resolution

43:26 ↗ um and then related to another question

43:29 ↗ as part of and I don't know what step

43:31 ↗ this would be a are we going to be doing

43:33 ↗ an evaluation of like say you have a

43:36 ↗ given system you could either be

43:37 ↗ replaced as is like by the the current

43:40 ↗ in place system so like a gas boiler or

43:43 ↗ it could be replaced by some like heat

43:45 ↗ pump or some other electric heating

43:47 ↗ device

43:48 ↗ um is there going to be like a a

43:50 ↗ comparison of those two like are we just

43:52 ↗ going to be generating the the kind of

43:56 ↗ option of like if we were to go

43:57 ↗ electrical without

44:00 ↗ yeah and I apologize I forgot to answer

44:02 ↗ this as well but um so we are gonna get

44:06 ↗ caught so as part of the facilities

44:08 ↗ condition assessment we will get cost

44:10 ↗ estimates for equipment replacement

44:13 ↗ um generally with what that current

44:14 ↗ equipment is at the end of life

44:18 ↗ um as part of the decarbonization

44:19 ↗ assessment and energy audits we'll have

44:22 ↗ uh cost assessments for

44:25 ↗ you know New pieces of equipment that

44:27 ↗ reduce our energy use and that

44:30 ↗ um decarbonize our buildings

44:32 ↗ um I do not think we have no plans to

44:37 ↗ kind of do that comparison assessment

44:40 ↗ for all equipment across our our

44:42 ↗ buildings

44:44 ↗ um I think it is perfectly

44:47 ↗ um likely and it's a a great idea to be

44:50 ↗ kind of doing some of that assessment

44:52 ↗ especially for our some of our bigger

44:54 ↗ pieces of equipment that might have kind

44:56 ↗ of Greater impact so for instance

44:58 ↗ changing out of gas gas heating

45:01 ↗ equipment to a heat pump kind of

45:03 ↗ exploring kind of what the difference is

45:05 ↗ um are there

45:07 ↗ um but we do not have currently like a

45:10 ↗ system to to report out on that um

45:13 ↗ you know what was and what what uh we're

45:16 ↗ going to do other than I should note the

45:19 ↗ um Municipal greenhouse gas inventory

45:21 ↗ that we're currently doing so we have

45:22 ↗ one for 2022 and the idea is to keep

45:25 ↗ doing those every two years so hopefully

45:27 ↗ the the reduction in greenhouse gas

45:31 ↗ emissions would be reflected in that as

45:33 ↗ time goes on

45:34 ↗ yeah and and I think this is probably

45:36 ↗ beyond the scope of what we're covering

45:38 ↗ this resolution I do think as we get to

45:41 ↗ implementation it's going to be

45:42 ↗ important to like not say the total

45:45 ↗ project cost is specific to

45:46 ↗ decarbonization like there would have

45:48 ↗ had to be a new system replacing

45:50 ↗ the HVAC in a given building so any cost

45:53 ↗ that's associated with decarbonization

45:55 ↗ as part of that is really only any

45:57 ↗ incremental cost and so I do think

45:59 ↗ there's going to be something like

46:01 ↗ thinking about that not only for how

46:03 ↗ it's kind of positioned and communicated

46:05 ↗ in budgets and and to the public but

46:08 ↗ also in how we make decisions because I

46:11 ↗ do think that we're going to need to

46:13 ↗ make calls on where to best invest our

46:15 ↗ funds and the the combination of what's

46:17 ↗ the cost difference and what's the

46:19 ↗ carbon difference

46:20 ↗ should be like that ratio is is an

46:23 ↗ important one I would say and should be

46:24 ↗ something that is an output of whatever

46:27 ↗ we're creating here hopefully to help

46:30 ↗ everyone within the city to make the

46:31 ↗ Investments that make the most sense and

46:33 ↗ have the most impact so just would

46:35 ↗ encourage that as part of the later

46:37 ↗ stages of the process

46:39 ↗ absolutely thank you

46:41 ↗ Nancy it looks like you have just one

46:43 ↗ quick question this includes the fire

46:45 ↗ stations right there in the assessment

46:50 ↗ David we didn't hear you sorry yes

46:55 ↗ sorry about that

46:58 ↗ are there any other questions or

47:00 ↗ comments

47:04 ↗ foreign

47:08 ↗ any members want to go forth emotion

47:13 ↗ on the resolution at hand that uh David

47:15 ↗ has presented

47:25 ↗ to uh prove the resolution as presented

47:28 ↗ and discussed in this meeting

47:31 ↗ thank you do we have a second for

47:33 ↗ promotion thank you Dan we have a second

47:35 ↗ from Anne now we will open it up for

47:38 ↗ questions and discussion

47:41 ↗ um after that if there aren't any other

47:43 ↗ amendments we'll vote but if there are

47:45 ↗ additional amendments we may have

47:46 ↗ additional steps to the process so right

47:49 ↗ now we're not uh voting please

47:52 ↗ um let us know if there's any questions

47:53 ↗ or comments on the motion that Nancy

47:56 ↗ made uh Nancy please go ahead uh the one

47:59 ↗ thing I did point out earlier is that I

48:01 ↗ didn't think I could support it but

48:03 ↗ based on our conversation that it does

48:04 ↗ include all City buildings I will be

48:07 ↗ supporting it that's why I made the

48:08 ↗ motion and I appreciate the

48:10 ↗ clarification too thank you

48:12 ↗ of course and I apologize it's a little

48:15 ↗ confusing and I'm figuring it all out as

48:18 ↗ we go a little bit so yeah thank you for

48:20 ↗ for uh your clarifications as well

48:25 ↗ yeah they're

48:29 ↗ any other uh questions or comments

48:36 ↗ all right well I think then

48:38 ↗ um it will be we'll be voting on the

48:40 ↗ motion to

48:42 ↗ um what was the language to approve the

48:45 ↗ resolution as written and as discussed

48:49 ↗ during the meeting

48:51 ↗ all right

48:53 ↗ um so I think uh it would be great Nancy

48:57 ↗ if you could take us through a roll call

48:59 ↗ vote

49:00 ↗ sorry man it's not actually Stacy

49:07 ↗ sorry just for clarification too

49:09 ↗ um Jamie I had sent you some language uh

49:12 ↗ my understanding and Chris can jump in

49:15 ↗ here too is Council doesn't do a lot of

49:16 ↗ resolutions but I believe what we're

49:18 ↗ looking for is the board to make a

49:20 ↗ recommendation to counsel for approval

49:23 ↗ so we would be advancing the resolution

49:25 ↗ to council

49:26 ↗ just to clarify

49:29 ↗ um so I don't know if we need to amend

49:32 ↗ um the motion or if it's okay for the

49:34 ↗ board to approve it and staff take that

49:37 ↗ as meaning we then Advance it to council

49:40 ↗ I will defer to the board on what they

49:42 ↗ would like to do

49:43 ↗ I think what would need to happen is

49:45 ↗ someone would propose an amendment to

49:47 ↗ them if we would like to make that clear

49:50 ↗ if someone would propose an amendment

49:52 ↗ and we would accept that Amendment

49:54 ↗ um

49:55 ↗ the four wheels that's the right

49:57 ↗ direction I'll withdraw my motion

49:59 ↗ [Music]

50:01 ↗ for a second

50:02 ↗ okay I'll be around a second

50:05 ↗ all right

50:07 ↗ do we have any motions

50:09 ↗ on the issue enhancement

50:12 ↗ I don't know what she wants us to say

50:14 ↗ daisy do we have likely somewhere yeah

50:17 ↗ all right right here I emailed it late

50:20 ↗ to you today yeah I think we're looking

50:21 ↗ for the board to

50:24 ↗ um approve the resolution to advance to

50:27 ↗ council

50:30 ↗ I I think I think this is it I recommend

50:34 ↗ Council adopt the municipal building

50:36 ↗ decarbonization risk resolution as is

50:40 ↗ hours isn't that it thank you that works

50:43 ↗ thank you Dan now do we have a second

50:48 ↗ member

50:50 ↗ I second that

50:52 ↗ thank you so now any discussion on that

50:54 ↗ motion that Andrew stated

51:03 ↗ no discussion now I think we can move to

51:05 ↗ roll call vote Stacy could you take us

51:06 ↗ through that yes I'll do a roll call

51:09 ↗ though of the regular members

51:11 ↗ um you could say I or nay at Tom

51:13 ↗ Anderson

51:15 ↗ all right

51:16 ↗ uh Nancy Davidson

51:18 ↗ hi Jamie Finch hi prajapandi

51:23 ↗ hi uh Ashwin Kanan

51:27 ↗ hi

51:28 ↗ and newcome

51:30 ↗ bye

51:32 ↗ and I believe that is all of our regular

51:35 ↗ members that are present please

51:37 ↗ speak up if I missed you

51:40 ↗ I think the motion passes

51:44 ↗ thank you everyone

51:47 ↗ um anything else that you need from us

51:49 ↗ on this topic David

51:52 ↗ I think I have the information I need

51:55 ↗ um I can I will keep the board updated

51:58 ↗ with progress

51:59 ↗ um as this work continues

52:02 ↗ um yeah

52:04 ↗ great thank you and I think with that

52:06 ↗ then we'll move to you probably talking

52:08 ↗ some more which is the sustainable

52:09 ↗ purchasing policy you get no break I do

52:12 ↗ apologize you have a lot of me tonight

52:15 ↗ so

52:16 ↗ um I'll go through that I know we're

52:18 ↗ kind of a little delayed on time so I'll

52:20 ↗ go through this

52:22 ↗ um and I would ask for this presentation

52:24 ↗ that we save comment or questions until

52:26 ↗ the end of the presentation

52:29 ↗ um so the sustainable purchasing policy

52:32 ↗ uh has been moved forward quite a bit

52:35 ↗ since I last brought this to the board

52:38 ↗ um it was identified in the Issaquah

52:40 ↗ climate action plan

52:42 ↗ um and it recognizes that the products

52:44 ↗ and services that the city purchases

52:46 ↗ um have inherently social environmental

52:49 ↗ and economic impacts at their time of

52:51 ↗ purchase and throughout their life cycle

52:54 ↗ um it is going to be uh as when adopted

52:58 ↗ it will be an internal policy and an

53:01 ↗ implementation guide that goes along

53:03 ↗ with the policy

53:05 ↗ um and because it is internal and not

53:07 ↗ Council approved

53:08 ↗ um that would allow it to be more

53:11 ↗ flexible be updated be improved as time

53:14 ↗ goes on

53:15 ↗ um which is I think one of the the

53:16 ↗ strengths of that method

53:19 ↗ uh where will the policy make a

53:21 ↗ difference uh simply put the goal is it

53:24 ↗ will make a difference everywhere

53:26 ↗ throughout the city

53:28 ↗ um all departments make procurements

53:31 ↗ um all departments have folks who buy

53:35 ↗ things on a regular basis

53:37 ↗ um so this policy and the implementation

53:40 ↗ guide recognizes that implementation

53:42 ↗ will take time until every single uh

53:48 ↗ item and service procured by the city is

53:51 ↗ uh fully uh integrated with the policy

53:54 ↗ but we are we are committed to that and

53:56 ↗ there's a lot we're going to do to try

53:57 ↗ and make sure that

53:59 ↗ um the sustainable purchasing policy is

54:01 ↗ integrated throughout the city

54:02 ↗ there are a few kind of key

54:04 ↗ opportunities here

54:06 ↗ um so for instance Vehicles is one right

54:09 ↗ we purchase quite a few vehicles at the

54:11 ↗ city and this policy strengthens the

54:14 ↗ argument for uh purchasing more

54:17 ↗ environmentally friendly uh vehicles

54:21 ↗ um Public Works is another one so there

54:24 ↗ are a lot of uh projects uh capital

54:27 ↗ projects

54:28 ↗ um and operation purchases from Public

54:31 ↗ Works

54:32 ↗ um and I've met quite a few times with

54:34 ↗ our Public Works managers about this uh

54:37 ↗ policy and there's they've noted that a

54:40 ↗ lot of the uh procurement that has

54:43 ↗ happened in the past at Public Works uh

54:45 ↗ sometimes just happens because that's

54:47 ↗ what's been done

54:48 ↗ um in previous uh times and so by

54:52 ↗ implementing this policy by having the

54:53 ↗ training and by working uh very closely

54:56 ↗ with our staff we hope to kind of shift

55:00 ↗ um infrastructure projects and right so

55:03 ↗ projects across uh the city and then you

55:06 ↗ know it'll even a line very closely with

55:08 ↗ office supplies so thinking about what

55:10 ↗ paper we buy thinking about

55:12 ↗ um right what what equipment we're we're

55:15 ↗ buying for for the daily use of our

55:18 ↗ offices

55:21 ↗ um the policy implementation is going to

55:24 ↗ rely on a lot of uh it's going to rely

55:28 ↗ on most importantly staff support and

55:31 ↗ buy-in

55:33 ↗ um we wanted to build a policy that had

55:36 ↗ staff excited and interested to apply it

55:38 ↗ and had staff who uh staff bought into

55:42 ↗ the idea of taking the time and the

55:45 ↗ effort to think about how to apply a

55:47 ↗ sustainable purchasing policy we're

55:49 ↗ going to have staff trainings we're

55:51 ↗ going to have specific Department

55:53 ↗ support so that entails that will entail

55:55 ↗ me going out to departments and talking

55:57 ↗ about their individual purchases

55:59 ↗ supporting them on that individual scale

56:02 ↗ we're going to build tools and resources

56:05 ↗ I have a few listed and then we're going

56:08 ↗ to have a lot of procurement templates

56:10 ↗ that are going to integrate pieces of

56:12 ↗ the sustainable purchasing policy into

56:13 ↗ them

56:14 ↗ and then right now our implementation

56:16 ↗ guide lays out a number of different

56:19 ↗ evaluation and tracking methods that

56:21 ↗ we're planning on implementing which

56:24 ↗ will allow us to

56:26 ↗ measure to the best of our ability how

56:29 ↗ we are doing it implementing this policy

56:33 ↗ so current stage

56:35 ↗ um the policy and the implementation

56:37 ↗ guide are currently out for uh feedback

56:40 ↗ from staff

56:42 ↗ um and then I'm coming to you all again

56:45 ↗ um I calling it version 1.5 because we

56:47 ↗ we wrote a draft policy and then for

56:50 ↗ some key uh internal stakeholders we got

56:53 ↗ some updates and so this is version 1.5

56:57 ↗ so the next steps are we're going to

56:59 ↗ revise the policy we're going to seek

57:01 ↗ adoption and then most importantly is

57:03 ↗ that Implement monitoring tracking and

57:06 ↗ continuing to revise to make sure that

57:08 ↗ we uh continue to have as strong a

57:11 ↗ policy as we can here and continue to to

57:13 ↗ focus on areas of improvement within our

57:16 ↗ procurement

57:18 ↗ um our policy timeline we're kind of in

57:20 ↗ that fall uh that phase three right now

57:23 ↗ getting uh impact input on the draft

57:26 ↗ policy and then we are hoping to adopt

57:29 ↗ later this fall and then right away

57:31 ↗ begin implementation

57:34 ↗ so the focus for the environmental board

57:37 ↗ tonight

57:38 ↗ um and the main thing that I wanted to

57:40 ↗ ask for feedback on are on the

57:43 ↗ environmental guiding principles

57:45 ↗ so the guiding principles matter for the

57:47 ↗ policy because these are the pieces that

57:49 ↗ we are asking uh these are the

57:51 ↗ statements that we're asking staff to

57:53 ↗ apply whenever they are making a

57:55 ↗ purchasing decision

57:57 ↗ applying The Guiding principles will

58:00 ↗ look different depending on the purchase

58:02 ↗ right if you're purchasing uh food for

58:05 ↗ an event uh applying The Guiding

58:07 ↗ principles in that sense is different

58:09 ↗ than applying The Guiding principles uh

58:11 ↗ for a you know an infrastructure project

58:15 ↗ um The Guiding principles will inform

58:17 ↗ and be incorporated into rfps rfqs

58:21 ↗ contracts templates we're currently

58:23 ↗ working with our City attorney as well

58:26 ↗ as our finance staff to

58:28 ↗ figure out kind of exactly how we're

58:31 ↗ going to be be building those at out but

58:34 ↗ the goal is that for the most part

58:36 ↗ um as we send out procurements and as we

58:39 ↗ create contracts or enter into contracts

58:42 ↗ that it will be

58:44 ↗ um very clear to whoever we're working

58:46 ↗ with that these are our guiding

58:47 ↗ principles and this is what the city

58:49 ↗ cares about

58:51 ↗ um and then when we are evaluating uh

58:55 ↗ our RFP responses RFP responses Etc

58:58 ↗ there's going to be specific questions

59:00 ↗ asking staff to evaluate those vendors

59:03 ↗ based on their compliance with the

59:05 ↗ guiding principles

59:07 ↗ so the way that we are doing this

59:11 ↗ um is we have currently is we have an

59:14 ↗ overarching environmental guiding

59:16 ↗ principle that is essentially going to

59:18 ↗ be used as shorthand for for the rest of

59:21 ↗ the guiding principles in uh some spaces

59:24 ↗ when we need to kind of save space but

59:26 ↗ so this is the overarching Environmental

59:28 ↗ statement

59:29 ↗ and I'll give you all a moment to read

59:31 ↗ this

59:41 ↗ okay

59:43 ↗ and then we have detailed environmental

59:45 ↗ guiding principles

59:48 ↗ um

59:48 ↗ and I have a lot on the board I believe

59:51 ↗ they're all in your board packets

59:53 ↗ so we'll come back to this slide when we

59:55 ↗ have when we want to talk about these

59:58 ↗ but the real questions I have for the

1:00:00 ↗ environmental board tonight are what

1:00:02 ↗ feedback does the environmental board

1:00:04 ↗ have on the environmental the

1:00:06 ↗ overarching guiding principle and that

1:00:08 ↗ first italicized slide and then the

1:00:12 ↗ detailed guiding principles and then

1:00:14 ↗ specifically or is there anything

1:00:16 ↗ missing from these guiding principles

1:00:18 ↗ that should be added

1:00:20 ↗ and I will now

1:00:23 ↗ open it up to comments and I'll kind of

1:00:26 ↗ leave it on the this slide for now

1:00:27 ↗ unless we go to the overarching

1:00:29 ↗ environmental principle statement

1:00:33 ↗ thank you David

1:00:35 ↗ um any

1:00:37 ↗ questions on the board um go ahead

1:00:41 ↗ oh yes John Anderson here uh so just on

1:00:44 ↗ the first bullet there reduce 11 8 use

1:00:46 ↗ of toxins and hazardous chemicals I'm

1:00:50 ↗ just wondering how this Balancing Act

1:00:52 ↗ will be implemented I mean I know the

1:00:55 ↗ city uses toxic chemicals or invasive

1:00:59 ↗ weed control

1:01:00 ↗ and uh this has been determined to be

1:01:04 ↗ the most practical way of dealing with

1:01:06 ↗ certain things problematic things like

1:01:08 ↗ blackberries is this is this going to be

1:01:12 ↗ uh uh you know we're going to turn away

1:01:14 ↗ from all that and based on this

1:01:17 ↗ um a document or is there some other

1:01:21 ↗ ouch in there somewhere that says oh

1:01:23 ↗ well unless it's inconvenient or unless

1:01:25 ↗ it's not cost effective to do uh what we

1:01:28 ↗ really want to do uh what's your what's

1:01:31 ↗ your feeling on that

1:01:33 ↗ yeah great question so the sustainable

1:01:36 ↗ purchasing policy leans very heavily on

1:01:39 ↗ guidance recognizing that the breadth of

1:01:42 ↗ what we purchase at the city is is very

1:01:44 ↗ wide and uh

1:01:47 ↗ when it gets down to the specifics of a

1:01:50 ↗ any individual purchase there are a lot

1:01:52 ↗ of trade-offs and complexities into what

1:01:55 ↗ is the best thing to purchase

1:01:59 ↗ um and so when this policy says

1:02:02 ↗ something like reducer eliminate the use

1:02:04 ↗ of toxins and hazardous chemicals that

1:02:06 ↗ does not necessarily mean that

1:02:10 ↗ um we are going to completely do away

1:02:12 ↗ with uh

1:02:14 ↗ toxins or hazardous chemicals if they

1:02:17 ↗ are deemed as the most appropriate way

1:02:19 ↗ to for instance deal with blackberries

1:02:23 ↗ um however what this will do is uh

1:02:26 ↗ support staff and encourage staff to

1:02:28 ↗ look for Alternatives wherever possible

1:02:33 ↗ okay thank you

1:02:35 ↗ enjoy God thank you chair uh gosh Tom I

1:02:39 ↗ appreciate you bringing this up I think

1:02:40 ↗ Blackberry is such an excellent thing

1:02:42 ↗ that we should all be keeping in mind

1:02:43 ↗ when we see Neighbors and members of our

1:02:46 ↗ community taking fruit

1:02:48 ↗ uh and reminding ourselves of the

1:02:51 ↗ pesticides that we regularly spray

1:02:53 ↗ incredible areas so just to go after

1:02:55 ↗ this first one

1:02:57 ↗ um I do believe that guidance is the

1:02:59 ↗ right way to go I would love to see

1:03:01 ↗ language strengthened to talk about the

1:03:03 ↗ disposal of our products that's

1:03:05 ↗ something I brought the last time I do

1:03:07 ↗ appreciate that this language has been

1:03:09 ↗ strengthened in this uh 0.5 draft I do

1:03:12 ↗ think it might be worth calling out your

1:03:14 ↗ example uh David of like when the city

1:03:16 ↗ does an event with food right is food

1:03:19 ↗ being separated leftover food that is it

1:03:21 ↗ uses it being separated from its

1:03:22 ↗ containers and is it being properly

1:03:24 ↗ composted uh rather than just being

1:03:27 ↗ thrown away in you know as a whole thing

1:03:30 ↗ I think that there's room uh to

1:03:33 ↗ strengthen language on this while still

1:03:35 ↗ staying with guidance

1:03:37 ↗ um I had sent some comments and I think

1:03:39 ↗ one way to do that is um with our ever

1:03:42 ↗ faithful bureaucracy let's do more

1:03:44 ↗ tracking I think there's an

1:03:45 ↗ accountability piece that could be put

1:03:47 ↗ in of asking departments to clarify why

1:03:50 ↗ did you not follow this policy you made

1:03:52 ↗ a different choice and we'd like to

1:03:54 ↗ track why you did that and there should

1:03:55 ↗ be a form where they're required to say

1:03:58 ↗ every time they don't do it uh why was

1:04:01 ↗ that not the case and then we'll be able

1:04:03 ↗ to further follow are we seeing Trends

1:04:06 ↗ in our purchasing of where it's being

1:04:08 ↗ deemed too hard or we're deciding that

1:04:10 ↗ like for instance the cost right rather

1:04:13 ↗ than paying for the labor to remove an

1:04:14 ↗ invasion species and instead spray toxic

1:04:18 ↗ pesticides in our Watershed we've made

1:04:21 ↗ that choice right and we should own that

1:04:23 ↗ choice and we should then not be

1:04:25 ↗ swooping it under the rug so I think

1:04:27 ↗ that there's an opportunity to be

1:04:28 ↗ shedding more light for the public on

1:04:29 ↗ these guiding principles and still

1:04:31 ↗ keeping them guidance by having further

1:04:33 ↗ reporting I think it would also be fair

1:04:36 ↗ that every time that maybe for instance

1:04:38 ↗ that's done the the public is alerted

1:04:41 ↗ right there should be a sign that says

1:04:42 ↗ the City of Issaquah has sprayed

1:04:45 ↗ hazardous chemicals here right and we

1:04:47 ↗ might get a better response from our

1:04:49 ↗ community if they were more aware of

1:04:50 ↗ when we're making choices that more fit

1:04:54 ↗ um an economic side that necessarily

1:04:58 ↗ outside so I think that there's an

1:05:00 ↗ interesting component to staying

1:05:01 ↗ guidance but still being able to collect

1:05:03 ↗ relevant information for us to be able

1:05:05 ↗ to move forward and say in our

1:05:07 ↗ procurement why are we making the

1:05:08 ↗ choices that we're making so that we can

1:05:10 ↗ be making better choices down the road

1:05:15 ↗ just to respond to that real quickly I

1:05:18 ↗ think that is a great uh great point and

1:05:21 ↗ that is something that

1:05:22 ↗ um I'm trying to be very cognizant of is

1:05:25 ↗ that right if we put this together and

1:05:27 ↗ then we aren't tracking things it's not

1:05:29 ↗ going to cause it's not going to lead to

1:05:32 ↗ the change that we want right

1:05:34 ↗ um currently

1:05:36 ↗ um we do have an evaluation system put

1:05:40 ↗ in play or we will be putting in place

1:05:42 ↗ an evaluation system to look at

1:05:45 ↗ purchases on a yearly basis

1:05:48 ↗ um that's a little bit more frequent

1:05:50 ↗ than what some other jurisdictions do

1:05:53 ↗ which kind of focuses more on the other

1:05:55 ↗ the every other year basis

1:05:58 ↗ um and the other kind of just just note

1:06:01 ↗ on that is uh I think there's the

1:06:04 ↗ opportunity to identify certain

1:06:07 ↗ um practices that we want to uh look

1:06:10 ↗ into either through the environmental

1:06:12 ↗ board or identification by the

1:06:15 ↗ sustainability team or whatnot

1:06:18 ↗ um but most of the evaluation is going

1:06:20 ↗ to focus on kind of higher cost

1:06:22 ↗ purchases

1:06:23 ↗ um that uh recognizing that bigger

1:06:26 ↗ purchases are likely going to have a

1:06:28 ↗ bigger environmental impact

1:06:31 ↗ um just recognizing staff capacity to go

1:06:35 ↗ through every every purchase that we

1:06:37 ↗ make so

1:06:39 ↗ I mean it's umbrella's point right talk

1:06:42 ↗ about resources right and so what you

1:06:44 ↗ want to do is you want to make the

1:06:46 ↗ environmental Choice be the easier

1:06:48 ↗ choice in a sense right and so the idea

1:06:51 ↗ is to say well if I'm having to use

1:06:53 ↗ staff resources to be able to complete

1:06:55 ↗ these things to do all this owner's

1:06:57 ↗ paperwork for tracking maybe it would

1:06:59 ↗ actually be more cost effective to do

1:07:01 ↗ the other solution right there's a

1:07:03 ↗ mechanism

1:07:04 ↗ um as somebody who ran corporate

1:07:06 ↗ procurement for a while at a major

1:07:08 ↗ corporation when you want to go through

1:07:11 ↗ outside of other channels you need to

1:07:13 ↗ justify that right these are our vendors

1:07:16 ↗ why are you doing it this other way

1:07:18 ↗ right and there's all these different

1:07:19 ↗ paths to get to your spot but you learn

1:07:21 ↗ how to be able to get what you need as

1:07:24 ↗ quickly as possible what we need to do

1:07:26 ↗ is to reframe our procurement to

1:07:28 ↗ procurement to say this is a as big a

1:07:31 ↗ value as your budget right and so being

1:07:34 ↗ able to realign that in a way that

1:07:35 ↗ hasn't happened within the

1:07:37 ↗ administration

1:07:38 ↗ you know certainly in the in the decade

1:07:40 ↗ that I've that I've been on the scene so

1:07:42 ↗ I think that there is a way to add a

1:07:45 ↗ component where we bring in our

1:07:47 ↗ stakeholders in a way that says you need

1:07:50 ↗ to stand by your choices if you're

1:07:52 ↗ choosing this obviously then you need to

1:07:54 ↗ make that choice and that's fine but you

1:07:56 ↗ need to own it in a way that we have

1:07:57 ↗ daylight on it so that we can know this

1:08:00 ↗ is our pain point we see time and time

1:08:01 ↗ again this isn't working for us so how

1:08:03 ↗ do we know how to unkink this because

1:08:05 ↗ right now we don't really have any kind

1:08:07 ↗ of visualization into that within the

1:08:09 ↗ administration I'm saying to people to

1:08:10 ↗ be able to track that

1:08:14 ↗ um I have that as a note and we'll kind

1:08:16 ↗ of explore opportunities to to raise up

1:08:19 ↗ those those examples of where things are

1:08:22 ↗ used and not used

1:08:23 ↗ to see your hand is up

1:08:26 ↗ we actually gave it all we had Nancy in

1:08:28 ↗ person I actually had a comment I was

1:08:30 ↗ going to make a question and a comment

1:08:32 ↗ Nancy then proj

1:08:34 ↗ um

1:08:35 ↗ I noticed in the whole text there were

1:08:39 ↗ there was a social equity and economic

1:08:41 ↗ section are those meant new being added

1:08:44 ↗ at the same time or are those existing

1:08:46 ↗ sections that this like this aspect is

1:08:49 ↗ just being added to

1:08:51 ↗ the entire policy is new so the equity

1:08:54 ↗ sections and the the economic sections

1:08:57 ↗ are also new

1:08:59 ↗ um I thought for the purposes of this

1:09:02 ↗ board of focus on the environmental for

1:09:04 ↗ the environmental guiding principles

1:09:06 ↗ um but if you have thoughts on the

1:09:09 ↗ others

1:09:10 ↗ um I'm open to that as well

1:09:12 ↗ yeah so it's not that I have

1:09:14 ↗ like specific opinions on the other ones

1:09:17 ↗ what I think is

1:09:18 ↗ important about all those other elements

1:09:21 ↗ being included is there's a ton being

1:09:22 ↗ added to City staff right now like there

1:09:25 ↗ is a long list of considerations that

1:09:28 ↗ they have to take into consideration

1:09:30 ↗ um I do understand that there's limits

1:09:33 ↗ to what we can do with a policy like

1:09:36 ↗ this you can't make it too onerous you

1:09:39 ↗ have to get the support of the staff I

1:09:41 ↗ think this is going to be difficult for

1:09:42 ↗ anyone to know like all the different

1:09:44 ↗ ways that they need to thread a purchase

1:09:47 ↗ through so I do agree with joy that in a

1:09:50 ↗ lot of cases I don't even think this is

1:09:51 ↗ necessarily going to be that they didn't

1:09:53 ↗ want to do the right thing there's just

1:09:55 ↗ a lot to take into consideration so I do

1:09:57 ↗ think

1:09:58 ↗ being really thoughtful about how staff

1:10:01 ↗ is reviewing it probably is it's

1:10:04 ↗ obviously not every transaction but how

1:10:06 ↗ are you getting not only just the big

1:10:08 ↗ dollar ticket ones but each team is

1:10:10 ↗ getting some review like how are you

1:10:12 ↗ spreading it out and kind of mixing in

1:10:14 ↗ your reviews so that there's there's

1:10:16 ↗ more than just the top big purchases

1:10:19 ↗ that are being reviewed the other thing

1:10:21 ↗ that I think is considered is whether

1:10:25 ↗ for items that are either above a

1:10:27 ↗ certain dollar figure or that have a

1:10:28 ↗ useful life

1:10:30 ↗ of us like more than a year that there's

1:10:33 ↗ additional considerations that are put

1:10:35 ↗ into place

1:10:36 ↗ um I worry that something like a vehicle

1:10:38 ↗ that is not only expensive but also has

1:10:40 ↗ potentially a 10-year useful life that

1:10:42 ↗ shouldn't be getting the same same level

1:10:45 ↗ of scrutiny as someone buying pencils

1:10:47 ↗ for the office so I do think that what I

1:10:50 ↗ worry about is there's there's no teeth

1:10:52 ↗ in this at all

1:10:53 ↗ um right now I guess it's my read like

1:10:55 ↗ and I understand why that's the case but

1:10:57 ↗ I do think there's certain situations

1:10:59 ↗ that justify some teeth that there

1:11:02 ↗ should be accountability when we're

1:11:03 ↗ making a

1:11:04 ↗ these type of decisions and so I think

1:11:06 ↗ having really selective places where we

1:11:10 ↗ know it's important to put additional

1:11:12 ↗ guidelines or additional checkpoints to

1:11:15 ↗ make sure that those really big ticket

1:11:16 ↗ things go the way that we're intending

1:11:18 ↗ or that we're at least getting capturing

1:11:20 ↗ the decision process so we know why it

1:11:23 ↗ didn't go the way we want to do is is

1:11:24 ↗ something to consider

1:11:27 ↗ um and that uh Nancy go ahead

1:11:30 ↗ hi David so I wanted to talk about the

1:11:33 ↗ way these are worded and the reason I'm

1:11:36 ↗ pointing this out is I like point the

1:11:39 ↗ first one which is the reducer eliminate

1:11:42 ↗ the use of toxins and Hazards but a

1:11:44 ↗ second one starts with support efforts

1:11:46 ↗ to minimize and can we potentially

1:11:49 ↗ consider just starting with minimize

1:11:51 ↗ resource consumption and reduced waste

1:11:54 ↗ it's a stronger statement

1:11:56 ↗ I mean these are just guiding principles

1:11:58 ↗ pretty much and so they may choose to do

1:12:01 ↗ something different but the support

1:12:03 ↗ really is kind of a weak statement in my

1:12:05 ↗ opinion and so I also think encourage

1:12:08 ↗ the use is also a fairly weak statement

1:12:11 ↗ I'm just pointing that out I think the

1:12:13 ↗ concepts right what I'm looking for is

1:12:16 ↗ stronger verbiage on the front or to

1:12:17 ↗ take those qualifiers out so you're

1:12:21 ↗ really making a positive statement to

1:12:22 ↗ them

1:12:24 ↗ um or consider the life you know it's

1:12:26 ↗ not just considerate they really should

1:12:28 ↗ be looking at you know making decisions

1:12:30 ↗ based on life cycle costs to both

1:12:35 ↗ um

1:12:36 ↗ from extraction to disposal and impacts

1:12:40 ↗ to the environment so you know I think

1:12:42 ↗ it's got to be you've got to tie back in

1:12:44 ↗ that environmental piece on the life

1:12:45 ↗ cycle costs because typically the

1:12:48 ↗ impacts to the environment has no life

1:12:50 ↗ cycle cost when you're doing something

1:12:52 ↗ like this but it really does have it in

1:12:54 ↗ an impact along the way and so that's

1:12:57 ↗ kind of missing in that particular

1:12:59 ↗ bullet I'm sorry I'm just kind of going

1:13:01 ↗ through each one but I think adding an

1:13:04 ↗ environmental piece to the life cycle

1:13:05 ↗ cost because everybody just says there's

1:13:07 ↗ no cost to what we're doing to the

1:13:09 ↗ environment if that's not true

1:13:12 ↗ um I'm the next bullet is very strong

1:13:15 ↗ reduced it's something you know very

1:13:18 ↗ positive uh the last piece it's very

1:13:22 ↗ hard but you know if you could put a

1:13:24 ↗ stronger word in that review and

1:13:27 ↗ um

1:13:28 ↗ you know

1:13:30 ↗ select vendors that reduce their you

1:13:33 ↗ know so you're really saying make the

1:13:36 ↗ environment just as big a piece as

1:13:39 ↗ what they're giving to you and so I'm

1:13:42 ↗ that's just my encouragement to you and

1:13:44 ↗ I think that last bullet I'm not sure

1:13:46 ↗ what you're getting to there's a lot of

1:13:48 ↗ words in there that don't I don't

1:13:49 ↗ understand but

1:13:51 ↗ um it would be helpful if you would kind

1:13:54 ↗ of clarify because if I was a staff

1:13:55 ↗ person I'd look and say I don't know how

1:13:57 ↗ to do this don't know what it means so

1:13:58 ↗ anyway that's just my feedback on the

1:14:02 ↗ specifics of the policies I hope that

1:14:04 ↗ helps

1:14:08 ↗ yeah I was just gonna say absolutely I

1:14:11 ↗ think

1:14:11 ↗ um for the most part strengthening the

1:14:14 ↗ the uh ones that you mentioned are that

1:14:17 ↗ should be easy to do

1:14:19 ↗ um and then the last bullet is kind of

1:14:23 ↗ confusing

1:14:24 ↗ um and it is uh expanded upon in the

1:14:27 ↗ implementation guide that really kind of

1:14:29 ↗ goes into what those Eco labels are and

1:14:32 ↗ kind of how one would look for those

1:14:37 ↗ thank you David Raj go ahead

1:14:44 ↗ uh hi David

1:14:46 ↗ um

1:14:47 ↗ so I had um I had a question or comment

1:14:50 ↗ which is uh kind of connected or

1:14:53 ↗ relevant to what Jamie was saying

1:14:55 ↗ um when I'm looking at this specifically

1:14:57 ↗ you know the bullet point where it says

1:14:59 ↗ review environmental practices that

1:15:01 ↗ vendors manufactures or contractors have

1:15:05 ↗ incorporated into their office or

1:15:07 ↗ production process my question was and

1:15:11 ↗ my guess is probably you do not have but

1:15:13 ↗ usually

1:15:15 ↗ um any cities or companies will have

1:15:17 ↗ their own preferred vendor list so what

1:15:19 ↗ they do is whether the vendor has a

1:15:22 ↗ project or not

1:15:24 ↗ um they basically send them through the

1:15:26 ↗ scrutiny of do you have this do you have

1:15:27 ↗ this certification do you have this

1:15:29 ↗ insurance what not if they meet the

1:15:31 ↗ requirements and keep them in the

1:15:33 ↗ preferred vendor list so that you know

1:15:35 ↗ when an opportunity or project comes up

1:15:37 ↗ they don't have to vet them again they

1:15:39 ↗ just pick them up and see if the there

1:15:42 ↗ if they can do the project and the

1:15:44 ↗ estimate seems right they will just pick

1:15:46 ↗ them up instead of wasting time at that

1:15:49 ↗ moment so my question was

1:15:51 ↗ um do you have any kind of preferred

1:15:54 ↗ vendor list for you know the city and is

1:15:58 ↗ environmental practices added as a

1:16:00 ↗ component for the preferred vendor list

1:16:04 ↗ question

1:16:05 ↗ um

1:16:06 ↗ generally no we do not have preferred

1:16:09 ↗ vendors list for the city

1:16:11 ↗ um uh it is

1:16:14 ↗ revamping kind of how we do our

1:16:17 ↗ procurement that this is coming at a

1:16:19 ↗ good time because we are

1:16:20 ↗ revamping a little bit of how we use do

1:16:23 ↗ our procurement we're thinking about

1:16:24 ↗ other tools within our finance

1:16:26 ↗ department

1:16:28 ↗ um and so it's not out of the question

1:16:31 ↗ that down the line in in the near-ish

1:16:33 ↗ future will have a preferred vendor list

1:16:35 ↗ at least for some types of procurements

1:16:39 ↗ or some types of items in which case

1:16:43 ↗ this purchasing policy would be

1:16:45 ↗ integrated into that so I had a

1:16:49 ↗ suggestion on that

1:16:51 ↗ um so basically you know the preferred

1:16:53 ↗ vendor list or you know for

1:16:55 ↗ um I have worked in the labs and the

1:16:57 ↗ labs typically have their standard

1:16:59 ↗ outbreasting procedures for you know any

1:17:02 ↗ IIT ISO certifications or they will have

1:17:04 ↗ the SOP guides you know and every time

1:17:07 ↗ they have a new procedure or anything

1:17:09 ↗ included they have a standard operating

1:17:11 ↗ procedure included for a new step or any

1:17:14 ↗ new equipment or whatnot

1:17:16 ↗ um so my my suggestion would be you know

1:17:19 ↗ down the line and this may not be a part

1:17:21 ↗ of the sustainable purchasing policy but

1:17:24 ↗ may be considered as an extension of it

1:17:27 ↗ where actually you know you can get an

1:17:30 ↗ input from the staff or actually the

1:17:33 ↗ employees who will be you know are

1:17:36 ↗ trying to get these um sustainable

1:17:38 ↗ products or sustainable practices

1:17:40 ↗ implemented for City work so get input

1:17:43 ↗ from them and come up with some kind of

1:17:45 ↗ standard operating procedures or

1:17:46 ↗ preferred vendor list down the lane so

1:17:49 ↗ that add Jimmy said you know there won't

1:17:51 ↗ be chaos by everybody trying to you know

1:17:54 ↗ find for every single purchase what is

1:17:57 ↗ the best way to handle it there will be

1:17:59 ↗ some guidance already available

1:18:01 ↗ um by using the research by the staff in

1:18:05 ↗ the city itself so that you know it's

1:18:08 ↗ easier and you will find a smoother

1:18:10 ↗ implementation basically of that

1:18:13 ↗ otherwise and especially for bigger

1:18:16 ↗ purchases or bigger equipments you know

1:18:18 ↗ higher value items you may definitely we

1:18:21 ↗ want to do that that will save you a lot

1:18:23 ↗ of time in crunch time projects or you

1:18:26 ↗ know delays in the projects being

1:18:28 ↗ processed

1:18:29 ↗ absolutely

1:18:31 ↗ thank you

1:18:36 ↗ is there anyone else I think that's

1:18:38 ↗ Dixie

1:18:39 ↗ oh that's Dixie oh Dixie please go ahead

1:18:42 ↗ I can't see your name but oh

1:18:45 ↗ um thank you hi David I just have um two

1:18:48 ↗ things I just want to Echo that I I

1:18:50 ↗ agree also I think the languaging

1:18:53 ↗ um would be helpful to be a little bit

1:18:55 ↗ um stronger um and then just a thought

1:18:58 ↗ I'm wondering if because you're talking

1:19:01 ↗ about people who are buying everything

1:19:02 ↗ from food to cars to you know whatever

1:19:05 ↗ I'm wondering if it would actually be

1:19:07 ↗ helpful that instead of it being just a

1:19:10 ↗ list of things to consider if it was

1:19:12 ↗ more of um an order of operation

1:19:16 ↗ so maybe they need to be listed

1:19:18 ↗ um because for some of these like if I'm

1:19:20 ↗ buying food for an event

1:19:23 ↗ um some of these really don't apply and

1:19:24 ↗ if maybe it's helpful

1:19:26 ↗ um for the for people making you know

1:19:29 ↗ looking at guiding principles to think

1:19:31 ↗ more like to be able to start at the top

1:19:33 ↗ of the list and say oh yeah this is

1:19:34 ↗ where I should start like to me

1:19:36 ↗ considering the end of life of the

1:19:39 ↗ product is actually probably the first

1:19:40 ↗ thing we should be thinking about I know

1:19:42 ↗ that's helpful for me when I'm making

1:19:44 ↗ decisions in my business about what to

1:19:46 ↗ buy

1:19:47 ↗ um because that's easy like oh how am I

1:19:49 ↗ going to get rid of this oh I can't get

1:19:51 ↗ rid of it so maybe I need to look at

1:19:54 ↗ other options I don't and maybe that's

1:19:56 ↗ impossible maybe that's too hard to

1:19:57 ↗ order them but maybe ordering them will

1:19:59 ↗ actually help people

1:20:01 ↗ be able to make some decisions

1:20:04 ↗ differently without getting overwhelmed

1:20:06 ↗ by the principles

1:20:08 ↗ um that's just a thought

1:20:11 ↗ it's a great Point um

1:20:13 ↗ I will point so the part of the idea

1:20:16 ↗ with the overarching environmental

1:20:17 ↗ guiding principle is that

1:20:20 ↗ to provide an entrance into the policy

1:20:23 ↗ where somebody can kind of focus on this

1:20:26 ↗ this kind of shorter

1:20:28 ↗ um description of what the environmental

1:20:30 ↗ guiding principles are getting at

1:20:32 ↗ um and if somebody say

1:20:35 ↗ make the purchase based on the

1:20:36 ↗ overarching principle first

1:20:38 ↗ they based on our implementation guide

1:20:41 ↗ we do expect them to go to kind of the

1:20:44 ↗ more uh detailed guiding principles for

1:20:47 ↗ future purchases

1:20:49 ↗ um

1:20:50 ↗ but

1:20:51 ↗ um and there are a few uh in again in

1:20:54 ↗ the implementation guide there are a few

1:20:55 ↗ other uh tools and suggestions for kind

1:20:58 ↗ of how to deal with the fact that there

1:21:01 ↗ are a lot of guiding principles and it's

1:21:03 ↗ very difficult to kind of hold all of

1:21:05 ↗ them together when you're making a

1:21:06 ↗ purchase of uh a leaf blower or

1:21:09 ↗ something you know you know any any

1:21:12 ↗ purchase that there might be

1:21:14 ↗ um

1:21:15 ↗ however

1:21:16 ↗ um I do appreciate the suggestion for

1:21:19 ↗ um any sort of uh

1:21:22 ↗ uh ordering and I'll I'll definitely

1:21:25 ↗ take a look back at this to see if

1:21:27 ↗ there's kind of opportunities for for

1:21:29 ↗ ordering of any of the environmental

1:21:31 ↗ guiding principles

1:21:35 ↗ all right thank you David I have one

1:21:37 ↗ final comment um

1:21:39 ↗ and it relates to my first question

1:21:42 ↗ um comment I I think the main goal of

1:21:46 ↗ this this policy was to support icap

1:21:50 ↗ with is that correct that the main the

1:21:53 ↗ main purposes was to support like

1:21:55 ↗ purchasing for sustainability for in

1:21:59 ↗ support of the climate action plan is

1:22:01 ↗ that a fair statement

1:22:04 ↗ or is it I think I would say that the

1:22:06 ↗ point is to improve our purchasing

1:22:08 ↗ practices and it was

1:22:10 ↗ um it was the impetus for the policy

1:22:13 ↗ came out of the icap

1:22:15 ↗ um okay the one thing that you just look

1:22:19 ↗ at the real estate currently less than

1:22:22 ↗ half of the bullets of like policies or

1:22:24 ↗ actual Enviro like are specific to the

1:22:27 ↗ environment and I think anyone that's

1:22:30 ↗ done a presentation or written anything

1:22:32 ↗ that was like the more things you put

1:22:33 ↗ the less focused each one gets and so I

1:22:36 ↗ just do want to like not to say that it

1:22:38 ↗ like just to be really thoughtful about

1:22:40 ↗ what we are including because you put

1:22:42 ↗ too much in and you get nothing and so I

1:22:45 ↗ do think that how we are succinct in and

1:22:48 ↗ and make sure that we're focusing people

1:22:49 ↗ on what's most important because I think

1:22:51 ↗ that's another thing that's missing is

1:22:52 ↗ like there's a ton of things listed here

1:22:56 ↗ what's most important is not clear

1:22:59 ↗ and so how do how do I know where I

1:23:02 ↗ should focus if I'm looking at this as a

1:23:04 ↗ staff member is not really that clear

1:23:06 ↗ and so I do think that an important part

1:23:08 ↗ of this is maybe it's not in the policy

1:23:10 ↗ itself it's something that staff are

1:23:12 ↗ getting on a yearly basis these are the

1:23:13 ↗ priorities within this list for this

1:23:15 ↗ year that we should be thinking about

1:23:16 ↗ but like right now it feels like a list

1:23:19 ↗ that's too long to actually be that that

1:23:22 ↗ useful and so there's I think that's a

1:23:24 ↗ challenge that either through a process

1:23:26 ↗ or through how how this is structured

1:23:28 ↗ should be considered for whatever file

1:23:31 ↗ version there is

1:23:33 ↗ appreciate it yeah that I think that's a

1:23:36 ↗ a difficult balance to make sure we're

1:23:37 ↗ not excluding any considerations but

1:23:40 ↗ also making sure that it is useful to

1:23:43 ↗ staff because again that's that's really

1:23:44 ↗ the Crux of it and I think the

1:23:46 ↗ priorities is something that I think is

1:23:48 ↗ important like I understand we have a

1:23:49 ↗ lot of things listed the priorities is a

1:23:52 ↗ piece that I I think is

1:23:54 ↗ we don't provide guidance on very

1:23:56 ↗ clearly right now between all of those

1:23:58 ↗ what which one do we want to make your

1:24:00 ↗ staff focus is on is not clear

1:24:04 ↗ thank you

1:24:07 ↗ Dixie I think is your hands up again or

1:24:10 ↗ is that

1:24:11 ↗ the same hand raise

1:24:16 ↗ the same hand raise all right

1:24:19 ↗ all right wanted to make sure and I

1:24:21 ↗ think I don't see any other comments oh

1:24:24 ↗ sorry Joy thank you

1:24:26 ↗ thank you no Jamie's comment made me

1:24:27 ↗ think

1:24:29 ↗ of actually reframing framing a little

1:24:30 ↗ bit when we're thinking about what we

1:24:32 ↗ want I think would be very interesting

1:24:33 ↗ to have you fly this past the equity

1:24:35 ↗ board

1:24:36 ↗ um when we think about restorative

1:24:38 ↗ justice we think about well what can I

1:24:40 ↗ do to make it better right and how our

1:24:42 ↗ city uses our dollars is an excellent

1:24:44 ↗ way for us to back up our beliefs in our

1:24:46 ↗ community and so being able to kind of

1:24:49 ↗ maybe take the opposite approach of

1:24:50 ↗ saying what's the vendors we don't want

1:24:52 ↗ to use right what are the things that we

1:24:54 ↗ don't want to promote right it's easy to

1:24:56 ↗ say when I'm doing um an event in the

1:24:58 ↗ office I don't want to have a plate

1:25:00 ↗ that's covered in plastic right I want

1:25:01 ↗ something that's compostable

1:25:04 ↗ um it's actually compostable this is

1:25:05 ↗ just more compostable right thank you

1:25:07 ↗ for all that wonderful training we had

1:25:08 ↗ recently at Cedar Grove and Recology uh

1:25:11 ↗ but uh it's an interesting way to also

1:25:13 ↗ think about the other hand in the of

1:25:16 ↗ this

1:25:17 ↗ um that I think this policy could be a

1:25:19 ↗ little bit richer and a little bit more

1:25:20 ↗ in depth if we think about

1:25:23 ↗ um who what vendors we are using for

1:25:25 ↗ instance it might be really easy to run

1:25:27 ↗ down to the Dollar Tree but is that

1:25:29 ↗ really what we want to to be supporting

1:25:31 ↗ in our community right so it might be

1:25:34 ↗ worth looking at this from from an

1:25:36 ↗ equity lens to be able to strengthen

1:25:38 ↗ this as a fuller picture

1:25:41 ↗ excellent um just on that note I have

1:25:44 ↗ been to the equity board for this policy

1:25:46 ↗ there's specific Equity guiding

1:25:48 ↗ principles in this as well as an equity

1:25:50 ↗ over our social Equity overarching

1:25:52 ↗ guiding principle and the plan is to go

1:25:55 ↗ to the equity board again

1:25:56 ↗ Excellence thank you

1:26:00 ↗ all right I think that

1:26:03 ↗ is everything for this topic is that oh

1:26:06 ↗ I see Dixie has a new event race

1:26:09 ↗ sorry thank you just one more thing

1:26:12 ↗ um I I would actually and I didn't know

1:26:15 ↗ if you were gonna go back to overarching

1:26:16 ↗ but um in the overarching I think it

1:26:18 ↗ would actually be important to call out

1:26:20 ↗ end of life in the overarching

1:26:23 ↗ um since that's a pretty large way to

1:26:26 ↗ um make a big difference

1:26:29 ↗ excellent thank you

1:26:33 ↗ thank you

1:26:34 ↗ I think is that everything you guys need

1:26:37 ↗ on this topic anything else to cover

1:26:40 ↗ I think that's all I needed thank you

1:26:42 ↗ hey thank you David

1:26:45 ↗ um with that we will move to our next

1:26:47 ↗ agenda item comprehensive plan climate

1:26:49 ↗ resilience and environmental stewardship

1:26:51 ↗ development I do want to note that it's

1:26:53 ↗ 8 p.m tonight I think we are folding to

1:26:55 ↗ our 8 30 time frame pretty closely so

1:26:58 ↗ there's a good likelihood discussion

1:27:00 ↗ there may be we may not be able to cover

1:27:02 ↗ all the materials I believe what we

1:27:04 ↗ Stacy and you can cover this if you'd

1:27:07 ↗ like but I think the recommendation from

1:27:10 ↗ Stacy was going to be that if for any

1:27:12 ↗ materials that we don't get through or

1:27:13 ↗ topic areas that we don't get through

1:27:15 ↗ that board members follow up via email

1:27:18 ↗ after the meeting as we don't want to go

1:27:21 ↗ beyond uh 8 30 tonight yeah thanks Jamie

1:27:25 ↗ yeah that's my suggestion we treat this

1:27:27 ↗ kind of as a introduction overview of

1:27:30 ↗ the full environment element and then

1:27:34 ↗ um environmental board members if you

1:27:36 ↗ all agree then could send me directly

1:27:39 ↗ um there are comments we will

1:27:41 ↗ incorporate those into a second draft of

1:27:44 ↗ the element and bring that back to you

1:27:46 ↗ in October we'll need to determine if

1:27:48 ↗ that's part of our regular meeting or if

1:27:50 ↗ we might need to schedule a special

1:27:51 ↗ meeting because

1:27:54 ↗ um the element is scheduled to go in

1:27:57 ↗ front of a council committee I believe

1:28:00 ↗ early or sorry late this fall early

1:28:02 ↗ winter so we'll want to keep on that

1:28:04 ↗ time track so that's the proposal we'll

1:28:07 ↗ just kind of introduce the element take

1:28:09 ↗ some initial questions or feedback and

1:28:11 ↗ then the board can send us written

1:28:13 ↗ comments does that sound okay Jamie

1:28:17 ↗ Grace how much time do you need for the

1:28:20 ↗ the other sections the the reports just

1:28:23 ↗ so we know that we're I'm managing for

1:28:25 ↗ that two minutes

1:28:27 ↗ great all right bear with me here

1:28:37 ↗ okay uh that is I don't know why it

1:28:40 ↗ pulled up that just one moment let me

1:28:45 ↗ thank you

1:28:49 ↗ I think I did say well

1:28:55 ↗ all right sorry trying to get it up on

1:28:57 ↗ the right screen here

1:29:06 ↗ that's not what I wanted either

1:29:09 ↗ hold on Casey do you want me to present

1:29:12 ↗ uh sure it's trying to take over both

1:29:15 ↗ screens when I go to presentation mode

1:29:16 ↗ so that would be great

1:29:19 ↗ here you are

1:29:21 ↗ great thank you very much sorry about

1:29:23 ↗ that

1:29:25 ↗ all right

1:29:27 ↗ um I think David is

1:29:28 ↗ working to pull up the presentation

1:29:33 ↗ there we go great thank you so much

1:29:37 ↗ um so a lot of what we're gonna say in

1:29:40 ↗ the the presentation tonight we have

1:29:42 ↗ shared with the board before we just

1:29:44 ↗ want to reiterate a lot of it as we move

1:29:47 ↗ into the first review of really what we

1:29:50 ↗ see is the the complete or full uh

1:29:53 ↗ climate resilience and environmental

1:29:54 ↗ stewardship element

1:29:57 ↗ um so tonight we are looking for

1:29:58 ↗ feedback on those goals and policies

1:30:00 ↗ included in that element we'll see how

1:30:02 ↗ far we get tonight and then look forward

1:30:04 ↗ to your written feedback

1:30:10 ↗ so what we are um

1:30:12 ↗ specifically what we're looking back for

1:30:15 ↗ feedback on is whether or not staff

1:30:17 ↗ accurately capture the comments you

1:30:19 ↗ provided our last meeting for the draft

1:30:21 ↗ goals and policies that you saw in

1:30:23 ↗ August and then also feedback on what

1:30:26 ↗ are new additions for you and those are

1:30:29 ↗ either goals or policies that we've

1:30:31 ↗ pulled in from other elements or their

1:30:34 ↗ new goals and policies for the comp plan

1:30:36 ↗ that are focused on climate resilience

1:30:39 ↗ next slide so just as a reminder you've

1:30:43 ↗ seen this slide probably three or four

1:30:45 ↗ times at this point but the

1:30:47 ↗ comprehensive plan is that high level

1:30:49 ↗ 20-year vision for the community that's

1:30:51 ↗ setting goals and policies those goals

1:30:55 ↗ and policies are then carried out

1:30:56 ↗ through the functional plans such as the

1:30:59 ↗ icap that is where we have the real more

1:31:01 ↗ specific strategies and actions for

1:31:05 ↗ implementation of those plans

1:31:08 ↗ and the next slide just emphasizes again

1:31:10 ↗ it shows that intersection of the comp

1:31:13 ↗ plan and functional plans where they

1:31:15 ↗ share those goals and policies the comp

1:31:17 ↗ plan being that much higher level vision

1:31:20 ↗ and the functional plan really getting

1:31:22 ↗ into that more detailed implementation

1:31:27 ↗ um and I should say Jamie would be great

1:31:28 ↗ if we could just hold questions to the

1:31:30 ↗ end since we're short on time

1:31:33 ↗ also as Stephen has shared with this

1:31:36 ↗ group what is new this round with the

1:31:39 ↗ comp plan is working to incorporate

1:31:42 ↗ legislation House Bill 1181 as we've

1:31:46 ↗ shared before the city is actually not

1:31:48 ↗ required to incorporate these new

1:31:51 ↗ components to the environment or sorry

1:31:53 ↗ to the comp plan this year we aren't

1:31:56 ↗ required to until 2029 but these are

1:31:59 ↗ really important components and so we

1:32:01 ↗ are working to incorporate as much as we

1:32:03 ↗ can with this update of our comp plan

1:32:05 ↗ particularly looking at the greenhouse

1:32:07 ↗ gas sub element and the resiliency

1:32:11 ↗ foreign and then next we're just going

1:32:14 ↗ to walk through where the board has been

1:32:16 ↗ on this journey so starting back in

1:32:20 ↗ April

1:32:21 ↗ um Stephen talked to us about what is a

1:32:23 ↗ comp plan what process would we be going

1:32:25 ↗ through and the board provided some

1:32:28 ↗ feedback on what would go into the new

1:32:30 ↗ environment element

1:32:33 ↗ um in July we talked about a proposed

1:32:36 ↗ title and we have a working title for

1:32:38 ↗ the environment element which is

1:32:40 ↗ environment stewardship and climate

1:32:43 ↗ resilience and then we also talked about

1:32:47 ↗ um about the level of content that would

1:32:50 ↗ be incorporated into the element in

1:32:52 ↗ terms of goals and policies

1:32:55 ↗ in August we saw feedback on goals and

1:32:59 ↗ policies that we had brought in from

1:33:01 ↗ other elements to the new environmental

1:33:03 ↗ stewardship and climate resilience

1:33:05 ↗ element and then staff work to

1:33:08 ↗ incorporate that feedback

1:33:11 ↗ so again today what we're looking at is

1:33:16 ↗ the the revised version or the updated

1:33:20 ↗ version of the new element that we have

1:33:24 ↗ made some

1:33:26 ↗ revisions to how we've structured this

1:33:28 ↗ element that are shown up here

1:33:32 ↗ um

1:33:32 ↗ and just an example two of what we're

1:33:35 ↗ going to see in this element versus what

1:33:38 ↗ we have left in the other elements in

1:33:41 ↗ the new element we have brought in the

1:33:44 ↗ transportation greenhouse gas reduction

1:33:46 ↗ goals and policies

1:33:48 ↗ but detailed goals around walking biking

1:33:52 ↗ those are going to remain in the

1:33:54 ↗ transportation element

1:33:56 ↗ um for resilience

1:33:58 ↗ to climate emergencies we've brought

1:34:01 ↗ that into the new element but any

1:34:03 ↗ specific policies related

1:34:05 ↗ um to for instance working with

1:34:07 ↗ utilities on resilience elements efforts

1:34:10 ↗ those will be remain in the utility

1:34:14 ↗ element

1:34:19 ↗ so today

1:34:21 ↗ um we just wanted to give you sorry

1:34:23 ↗ um we wanted to give you a preview of

1:34:24 ↗ what's coming and what you're not seeing

1:34:26 ↗ today

1:34:28 ↗ um so today are the updates to the what

1:34:31 ↗ we're calling shorthand environment

1:34:32 ↗ element because our working title is

1:34:34 ↗ quite long

1:34:36 ↗ but what we want to let you know what's

1:34:38 ↗ coming in October those will be

1:34:40 ↗ resilience and climate change related

1:34:43 ↗ policies that will remain in other

1:34:46 ↗ elements such as in transportation or

1:34:49 ↗ utilities Stephen will bring us those at

1:34:52 ↗ our next meeting they are still being

1:34:54 ↗ worked on by staff

1:34:56 ↗ so we're really focused today just on

1:34:58 ↗ what lives within the environment

1:35:01 ↗ element

1:35:03 ↗ so just diving into a little bit more

1:35:06 ↗ detail of what is in front of you

1:35:09 ↗ um we've made refinements again just to

1:35:12 ↗ reiterate we've made refinements to

1:35:14 ↗ goals and policies based on board

1:35:16 ↗ feedback we've brought in additional

1:35:18 ↗ goals and policies from other elements

1:35:21 ↗ such as transportation and then we've

1:35:23 ↗ developed new goals and policies around

1:35:25 ↗ resilience taking into consideration

1:35:27 ↗ feedback that the board has provided

1:35:29 ↗ over the last several months

1:35:31 ↗ again we are not looking right now at

1:35:36 ↗ other climate change resilience or

1:35:38 ↗ sustainability policies that will live

1:35:40 ↗ in the other elements those are going to

1:35:41 ↗ be discussed in October

1:35:43 ↗ this is really what we see as the full

1:35:48 ↗ complete draft environment element

1:35:51 ↗ knowing that there's there's probably a

1:35:53 ↗ lot of feedback and work we need to do

1:35:55 ↗ on the goals and policies

1:35:58 ↗ um I was gonna then just flip over to

1:36:00 ↗ the timeline so you all have an idea

1:36:03 ↗ of where we're headed I think it's the

1:36:06 ↗ very last slide

1:36:08 ↗ if we have that or I can just mention it

1:36:11 ↗ um that uh

1:36:15 ↗ um I mentioned what we will be doing I

1:36:17 ↗ think it is the very last slide but it's

1:36:19 ↗ okay David I can just mention it

1:36:22 ↗ um in October again we'll be looking at

1:36:26 ↗ um those policies that will live in

1:36:28 ↗ other elements Council will be reviewing

1:36:31 ↗ beginning to review uh comp plan

1:36:33 ↗ recommendations later in the fall and

1:36:36 ↗ then be working towards approval of the

1:36:39 ↗ comp plan by mid to late year next year

1:36:43 ↗ um so this is not the only time the

1:36:46 ↗ environmental board will touch this

1:36:48 ↗ element or look at the other elements we

1:36:50 ↗ have quite a bit of time for feedback as

1:36:52 ↗ we mentioned we'll schedule some

1:36:54 ↗ additional time as needed to dig in

1:36:56 ↗ further to the environment element as

1:36:59 ↗ well as we'll have most of our next

1:37:00 ↗ meeting dedicated to the comp plan

1:37:05 ↗ um so with that we can take questions

1:37:08 ↗ just on uh overview or or

1:37:12 ↗ um yeah general questions on the

1:37:14 ↗ presentation and then we can move into

1:37:16 ↗ any initial feedback on goals and

1:37:19 ↗ policies for 10 minutes or so and I can

1:37:22 ↗ bring the

1:37:26 ↗ thank you Stacy today we're going to

1:37:28 ↗ start with general questions and then we

1:37:31 ↗ move into people have more specific

1:37:33 ↗ feedback

1:37:36 ↗ um and that'll kick us off on General

1:37:39 ↗ comments um

1:37:40 ↗ basically I've emailed you about this I

1:37:43 ↗ do think while it's in I I understand

1:37:46 ↗ that in October we'll review the

1:37:48 ↗ transportation some of the other

1:37:49 ↗ elements I do think given the importance

1:37:52 ↗ of buildings and transportation in our

1:37:55 ↗ overall goals

1:37:57 ↗ any board that is going to be working in

1:38:00 ↗ depth on the comp planning sections that

1:38:02 ↗ are associated with those sections I

1:38:04 ↗ would hope are very intimately like

1:38:07 ↗ aware and familiar with the icap and if

1:38:10 ↗ that's not the case that seems like a

1:38:12 ↗ really important resource for them as

1:38:15 ↗ they go into doing what we're doing so I

1:38:17 ↗ think we'll do our best jobs where

1:38:18 ↗ there's other boards that have more

1:38:20 ↗ focus and will spend more time on those

1:38:22 ↗ elements and so I do think the more we

1:38:25 ↗ can do to make sure that they're

1:38:26 ↗ considering the same things that we're

1:38:28 ↗ thinking about it and we're not kind of

1:38:30 ↗ fighting and it's more like everyone's

1:38:32 ↗ working from the same place uh that

1:38:34 ↗ would be I think really beneficial

1:38:37 ↗ um

1:38:38 ↗ and then the other thing

1:38:40 ↗ um it was kind of a question for you

1:38:43 ↗ um that k4c wedge analysis that that uh

1:38:46 ↗ I think David sent over to me

1:38:49 ↗ do all of the the reduction goals are

1:38:52 ↗ those that we put in the comp plan are

1:38:55 ↗ those consistent with the k4c reduction

1:38:58 ↗ goals so that's basically pulled

1:38:59 ↗ directly from

1:39:00 ↗ the overarching or are they have we

1:39:03 ↗ created our own production targets

1:39:05 ↗ different from the k4c ones yeah

1:39:09 ↗ um

1:39:09 ↗ yeah let me double check on that but our

1:39:12 ↗ icap goals and targets are consistent

1:39:15 ↗ with k4c if if we're speaking the same

1:39:18 ↗ language I'll look back at the wedge and

1:39:20 ↗ just make sure what you're speaking to

1:39:22 ↗ is in alignment but yes the the city's

1:39:24 ↗ goals and targets are in alignment with

1:39:26 ↗ k4c because the question I had and it

1:39:29 ↗ sounds like it must add up I know that

1:39:32 ↗ the overall wedge analysis you have the

1:39:34 ↗ state and federal stuff that's taking

1:39:36 ↗ out a significant chunk and it still

1:39:38 ↗ looks like there's a very meaningful

1:39:40 ↗ chunk that we need to do ourselves and

1:39:43 ↗ so I just want to make sure the math

1:39:44 ↗ works like that we're the reductions

1:39:47 ↗ that we're all talking about lead to the

1:39:48 ↗ end goal of of what we've projected for

1:39:51 ↗ 2030 or what we've said we're going to

1:39:52 ↗ get to by 2030 so that just checking

1:39:55 ↗ that math is it sounds like it's

1:39:57 ↗ probably lines up but we just want to

1:39:58 ↗ make sure we validate that

1:40:01 ↗ yep that sounds that sounds great we can

1:40:04 ↗ Circle back on that and just um

1:40:07 ↗ confirm that but yeah

1:40:10 ↗ okay great

1:40:12 ↗ um how's everyone else I'm not seeing

1:40:14 ↗ any other general questions so I guess

1:40:15 ↗ we can get into more specific feedback

1:40:18 ↗ more questions

1:40:19 ↗ on the policies

1:40:24 ↗ that sounds great yeah I'll pull up the

1:40:27 ↗ um the document attachment one that was

1:40:30 ↗ in the board packet and maybe

1:40:33 ↗ I'm happy to jump around or if folks

1:40:36 ↗ want we could start with greenhouse gas

1:40:38 ↗ emission

1:40:39 ↗ section which was the first section

1:40:43 ↗ thank you Jamie uh for the sake of

1:40:46 ↗ brevity um Stacy I'm gonna hit two

1:40:48 ↗ important notes rather than going

1:40:49 ↗ through one by one

1:40:51 ↗ um if this board chooses to carry this

1:40:53 ↗ over to another meeting I would really

1:40:54 ↗ highly recommend that we go through this

1:40:57 ↗ with more of a fine-tooth film I'm very

1:40:59 ↗ down for that but um for the sake of

1:41:01 ↗ trying to keep our meeting short

1:41:03 ↗ um I want to say that I really

1:41:05 ↗ appreciated some of the new language

1:41:06 ↗ that's been included

1:41:08 ↗ um I uh uh we had a public comment from

1:41:11 ↗ Anne Fletcher that um would say it much

1:41:14 ↗ more eloquently than I would and I want

1:41:15 ↗ to second that I had a concern about

1:41:18 ↗ adding um about being able to add

1:41:21 ↗ language for existing especially

1:41:23 ↗ existing residential buildings and our

1:41:25 ↗ policies as somebody who sat um on the

1:41:28 ↗ coke side in PPC I will tell you that

1:41:30 ↗ we've had a tremendous

1:41:32 ↗ um a very difficult time being able to

1:41:34 ↗ apply code to existing residential and

1:41:38 ↗ being able to have policies on that back

1:41:40 ↗ end to be able to support it once bills

1:41:43 ↗ like I think that 1181 actually does

1:41:46 ↗ support us being able to make a move

1:41:48 ↗ obviously legal can weigh in on that and

1:41:50 ↗ I don't know we've been waiting for um

1:41:52 ↗ some green lights from Olivia to be able

1:41:54 ↗ to be to kind of go where we want to

1:41:56 ↗ with our building codes for retrofitting

1:41:58 ↗ I will say that I think there is room

1:42:01 ↗ for our language right here in the post

1:42:03 ↗ in our policies

1:42:04 ↗ um for instance on page 73 of our packet

1:42:07 ↗ which is 73 of 92. there's a new policy

1:42:10 ↗ to support development and Implement

1:42:11 ↗ Implement buildings and energy codes and

1:42:13 ↗ policies that reduce greenhouse gas

1:42:16 ↗ emissions across a larger source of

1:42:17 ↗ community-wide emissions based on

1:42:19 ↗ current greenhouse gases inventories I

1:42:21 ↗ think we could add language around there

1:42:22 ↗ that talks about

1:42:24 ↗ um how we want to support existing

1:42:27 ↗ residential uses we've also had trouble

1:42:30 ↗ with our code being able to put it put

1:42:33 ↗ mandate things like electric charging

1:42:36 ↗ um being um being ready in new building

1:42:40 ↗ residential I think there's space for

1:42:42 ↗ that as well

1:42:44 ↗ um right now it's Lu policy K2 which is

1:42:47 ↗ about Community resilience and

1:42:48 ↗ well-being strategy number one I think

1:42:50 ↗ might be a place to be able to add that

1:42:52 ↗ kind of language we also have really

1:42:54 ↗ great language that talks about

1:42:57 ↗ um specifically our resources Lu gold J

1:43:00 ↗ for natural systems and water resources

1:43:03 ↗ and it talks to about being able to give

1:43:07 ↗ um better education to our community I

1:43:10 ↗ think it would be an interesting idea to

1:43:11 ↗ talk about having policy that in effect

1:43:14 ↗ uh helps to educate the public by

1:43:18 ↗ putting in systems that will help them

1:43:20 ↗ to get to where we want to go and I'm

1:43:22 ↗ going to use a quick story I was at Lake

1:43:24 ↗ Sammamish State Park recently there's a

1:43:27 ↗ tapest they get to be able to get water

1:43:28 ↗ and there was a family who was choosing

1:43:31 ↗ to leave the spigot on as the child was

1:43:33 ↗ playing and going and letting it drain

1:43:35 ↗ right and there was only so much time

1:43:36 ↗ that I could do before I said hi friends

1:43:39 ↗ do you think we were not using it we

1:43:40 ↗ could turn off that spigot to be able to

1:43:42 ↗ serve our Water Resources right that was

1:43:45 ↗ something that was surprising to them

1:43:47 ↗ and not a value that they shared with me

1:43:50 ↗ right but if we had installed something

1:43:52 ↗ like a pedal for someone to be able to

1:43:55 ↗ use the same way that we would with a

1:43:56 ↗ water fountain then we would be able to

1:43:59 ↗ basically circumvent that right I think

1:44:01 ↗ there's a role for education I think

1:44:03 ↗ there's also a role for having a policy

1:44:04 ↗ that says how do we look at how we're

1:44:06 ↗ interacting in our environment to be

1:44:08 ↗ able to do it in a better way to

1:44:09 ↗ conserve our resources and I think we

1:44:12 ↗ can make that a policy rather than

1:44:13 ↗ getting into the nitty-gritty that helps

1:44:15 ↗ to inform our allegiance of community

1:44:18 ↗ information and being able to also

1:44:21 ↗ access our policies that talk about

1:44:23 ↗ conservation in a way so I think that

1:44:25 ↗ there's a little bit of room to be able

1:44:26 ↗ to do that natural resources so

1:44:28 ↗ thank you

1:44:30 ↗ enjoy

1:44:34 ↗ um

1:44:35 ↗ Casey were you saying something yeah

1:44:37 ↗ sorry thank you Joy I wasn't able to

1:44:40 ↗ jump around to the policy specific

1:44:42 ↗ policies fast enough but we will Circle

1:44:44 ↗ back to the recording and get those

1:44:45 ↗ comments or look forward to you right

1:44:47 ↗ now to be creative about how we can add

1:44:49 ↗ policy language thank you great thank

1:44:51 ↗ you

1:44:54 ↗ I had and this touches on a few

1:44:57 ↗ different policies

1:44:59 ↗ um

1:45:01 ↗ I appreciate that we have specific

1:45:03 ↗ targets for a lot of the greenhouse gas

1:45:05 ↗ related ones or vehicle miles traveled

1:45:07 ↗ Etc

1:45:09 ↗ it does feel like in some cases like

1:45:13 ↗ vehicle miles travel decrease energy use

1:45:15 ↗ and new and existing buildings by 25 for

1:45:18 ↗ example that we have a goal but we

1:45:21 ↗ haven't actually set out

1:45:22 ↗ like and there's sort of a gray area

1:45:25 ↗ between what should the policies in icap

1:45:28 ↗ for example take care versus what should

1:45:30 ↗ be in comp plan but I do worry that

1:45:31 ↗ we've not actually given enough bread

1:45:33 ↗ crumbs on what like how we think that's

1:45:36 ↗ actually going to be achievable and so

1:45:38 ↗ that's something that it cuts across a

1:45:40 ↗ few different elements of this but I

1:45:42 ↗ think

1:45:43 ↗ what we're going to find with a lot of

1:45:44 ↗ people that set goals on greenhouse gas

1:45:46 ↗ emissions is like actually getting to

1:45:48 ↗ the targets is incredibly difficult and

1:45:50 ↗ so if we don't have hypothesis on how

1:45:52 ↗ that's going to happen they're probably

1:45:54 ↗ it's probably not going to happen and so

1:45:55 ↗ I do think if there's anything we can

1:45:57 ↗ add I don't have specific

1:45:58 ↗ recommendations but that just seems like

1:46:00 ↗ an area that the more we can do to

1:46:03 ↗ ensure that we're painting the picture

1:46:04 ↗ of like what do we actually need to do

1:46:06 ↗ to make

1:46:07 ↗ them in this document I think Connie

1:46:10 ↗ said it really well that like we need to

1:46:11 ↗ make sure that that those kind of

1:46:13 ↗ strings tie back in a way that

1:46:16 ↗ um that we can really point to what's

1:46:19 ↗ important and how we think we're going

1:46:20 ↗ to do it

1:46:22 ↗ um

1:46:23 ↗ so that's a nebulous statement but

1:46:25 ↗ hopefully helpful great thank you

1:46:38 ↗ any other

1:46:40 ↗ comments or questions from anyone

1:46:48 ↗ um go ahead

1:46:49 ↗ uh yes Tom Anderson here uh so some of

1:46:53 ↗ our comments from the public remind me

1:46:56 ↗ of a topic that we've talked touched on

1:46:59 ↗ before and I forget whether it was in

1:47:01 ↗ this context or not but that has to do

1:47:03 ↗ with uh traceability how do we how do we

1:47:06 ↗ make sure that our lower level policies

1:47:08 ↗ and procedures are fulfilling the high

1:47:10 ↗ level requirements of the comprehensive

1:47:12 ↗ plan or some other high-level planning

1:47:15 ↗ document and this is completely

1:47:17 ↗ analogous to in the engineering World

1:47:20 ↗ requirements traceability we have some

1:47:22 ↗ high level requirements so let's verify

1:47:24 ↗ that they trace down to lower level

1:47:26 ↗ requirements and that they trace to

1:47:28 ↗ design elements and then they trace to

1:47:31 ↗ implementation elements

1:47:33 ↗ Etc this is a standard operating

1:47:35 ↗ procedure and in many uh domains and

1:47:39 ↗ that sort of uh approach could be taken

1:47:41 ↗ to uh planning documents at a Civic

1:47:45 ↗ Arena such as this to make sure that uh

1:47:49 ↗ every element there it maps to something

1:47:52 ↗ at the lower level and that the

1:47:56 ↗ objective is achieved by whatever is

1:47:58 ↗ down there

1:48:00 ↗ um so I don't know I just want to make

1:48:03 ↗ the suggestion that this could be part

1:48:04 ↗ of a more rigorous method of verifying

1:48:08 ↗ completeness of our our planning and

1:48:10 ↗ implementation documents by approaching

1:48:14 ↗ the traceability of such requirements uh

1:48:18 ↗ in a more systematic way just a thought

1:48:21 ↗ to kind of address some of those

1:48:23 ↗ comments we've had from the public about

1:48:25 ↗ hey there's a disconnect between these

1:48:27 ↗ flowery words a bit off and the policies

1:48:30 ↗ at the lower level

1:48:33 ↗ that's all thank you

1:48:36 ↗ thank you Tom

1:48:38 ↗ um

1:48:40 ↗ actually realize I probably should have

1:48:42 ↗ asked one in a sustainable purchasing

1:48:44 ↗ policy but I think is relevant here as

1:48:45 ↗ well

1:48:47 ↗ um the city the sort of the purchasing

1:48:50 ↗ policy that we reviewed does that cover

1:48:54 ↗ infrastructure projects or is that for

1:48:56 ↗ operating expenses

1:48:59 ↗ oh

1:49:00 ↗ um so it would impact both

1:49:02 ↗ um I'll say since that's more Guidance

1:49:04 ↗ the idea and one of the icap actions is

1:49:07 ↗ to develop a sustainable infrastructure

1:49:09 ↗ policy

1:49:10 ↗ so uh

1:49:13 ↗ that the way I'm viewing it is

1:49:15 ↗ sustainable purchasing policy is more of

1:49:17 ↗ the overarching policy and we're going

1:49:18 ↗ to be drilling down more into

1:49:20 ↗ infrastructure uh with more policy okay

1:49:24 ↗ okay thank you I do think one aspect

1:49:28 ↗ that isn't really covered here at least

1:49:30 ↗ from my read was

1:49:32 ↗ the this is the purchasing side like

1:49:34 ↗ what the city what we want the city to

1:49:36 ↗ be doing on the purchasing side I don't

1:49:38 ↗ I think we sort of indirectly through

1:49:40 ↗ there's a new edition of like reduce

1:49:42 ↗ embodied carbon emissions and

1:49:44 ↗ construction to recycling I'm not clear

1:49:46 ↗ I think that's city-wide I do wonder if

1:49:49 ↗ there's something that more specific to

1:49:51 ↗ actions that the city can make in in the

1:49:54 ↗ decision and I don't know what it is but

1:49:55 ↗ both across

1:49:57 ↗ operating in the infrastructure projects

1:50:00 ↗ a statement that we can have it on plan

1:50:03 ↗ that can tie back

1:50:05 ↗ um to when these policies get rolled out

1:50:08 ↗ yeah that's a great

1:50:10 ↗ um that's a great suggestion Jamie we do

1:50:13 ↗ have something in I believe it's in the

1:50:15 ↗ environment element around

1:50:17 ↗ um tying budget back to climate and

1:50:20 ↗ sustainability so I could see something

1:50:22 ↗ around purchasing kind of being similar

1:50:24 ↗ to that goal and policy so David and I

1:50:26 ↗ could work on some language for that

1:50:32 ↗ foreign

1:50:33 ↗ thank you Jamie um if nobody else has

1:50:37 ↗ things then I'll definitely pull the

1:50:38 ↗ space I um I uh so on kind of the vein

1:50:42 ↗ of the the cool roofs uh technology that

1:50:45 ↗ uh we were talking about offline Stacy

1:50:47 ↗ um what I was thinking about with this

1:50:49 ↗ is that right when we think about you

1:50:50 ↗ know the teeth is in the code our policy

1:50:52 ↗ allows us the Avenue of our aspirations

1:50:55 ↗ and being able to say where we want to

1:50:57 ↗ go in the community

1:50:58 ↗ um and it's hard to be able to enact

1:51:00 ↗ code where we don't have policy support

1:51:02 ↗ so

1:51:03 ↗ um when we had earlier comments from

1:51:05 ↗ Connie varshi is absolutely right that

1:51:07 ↗ we need to have really heavy guidance

1:51:09 ↗ language

1:51:10 ↗ um to be able down the line to be able

1:51:12 ↗ to support the choices that we're making

1:51:15 ↗ um with our code that being said I'm

1:51:16 ↗ wondering if you think it would be

1:51:18 ↗ appropriate for us to be have policy

1:51:20 ↗ language

1:51:21 ↗ um specifically um like in our

1:51:23 ↗ resilience and well-being section which

1:51:25 ↗ is OU goal k for those following around

1:51:28 ↗ um for being able to say

1:51:30 ↗ um you know we having a policy that

1:51:32 ↗ talks about emerging Technologies and

1:51:34 ↗ being able to utilize new technologies

1:51:37 ↗ being able to um

1:51:40 ↗ have places to amend code right when we

1:51:42 ↗ know hey where these things coming up I

1:51:45 ↗ like as I was reading it I was thinking

1:51:47 ↗ on what I was putting on my channel

1:51:48 ↗ being because I've done a lot with um

1:51:51 ↗ our you know our design manuals for Old

1:51:53 ↗ Town for um for Central being able to

1:51:55 ↗ say wait this doesn't jive I don't think

1:51:58 ↗ that if I wanted to put in this new

1:52:00 ↗ technology that I could based on the

1:52:02 ↗ code and then being able to be like well

1:52:04 ↗ if we want to do that that means that

1:52:05 ↗ next year 2024 that would need to be

1:52:07 ↗ this

1:52:08 ↗ Council and put on for our comp plan and

1:52:11 ↗ you know the February January February

1:52:12 ↗ time frame right so my brain's thinking

1:52:14 ↗ about these things and being like Oh

1:52:15 ↗ well how would we do an amend it but

1:52:17 ↗ then to go further back do we need to

1:52:19 ↗ have language in our policies that helps

1:52:21 ↗ to support green technologies as they're

1:52:23 ↗ emerging to be able to well giving a

1:52:25 ↗ highlight to our planning policy

1:52:28 ↗ commission and to our Council into our

1:52:30 ↗ Administration and staff to say hey this

1:52:32 ↗ is relevant this should be an important

1:52:34 ↗ Focus for us because we have policies

1:52:36 ↗ that say there should be an emphasis on

1:52:38 ↗ emerging green technologies within the

1:52:40 ↗ community

1:52:42 ↗ um in a way that may contradict you know

1:52:44 ↗ some of the some of our current code I

1:52:46 ↗ don't know if that's might be a good

1:52:48 ↗ policy I don't know that we nail it but

1:52:50 ↗ yeah no that's a really interesting

1:52:53 ↗ suggestion thank you thank you

1:52:56 ↗ uh Stacy I realize I have a better way

1:52:58 ↗ to describe what I was saying earlier

1:53:01 ↗ where we have right now we have

1:53:04 ↗ a lot of instances where policies are

1:53:06 ↗ achieved a 15 reduction or achieve a 25

1:53:09 ↗ reduction which in my mind are goals

1:53:12 ↗ like our goal is to reduce to those

1:53:14 ↗ targets and so I do think that that

1:53:17 ↗ might be where I'm feeling that there's

1:53:19 ↗ we have goals as policies which I like

1:53:22 ↗ the goals I like what's written there

1:53:24 ↗ but I'm curious what the policies are

1:53:27 ↗ that support getting to that goal so it

1:53:29 ↗ seems like there may be some things that

1:53:31 ↗ are kind of

1:53:34 ↗ we might need to add some some of the

1:53:36 ↗ kind of supporting materials there and

1:53:38 ↗ potentially move some of the percentages

1:53:39 ↗ into the goals

1:53:42 ↗ yeah that's a good point some I mean a

1:53:45 ↗ lot of these were just pulled over with

1:53:46 ↗ how they were Incorporated previously

1:53:48 ↗ from the icap and I think David Knight

1:53:51 ↗ will need to work with Steven's team on

1:53:53 ↗ organization but these May

1:53:56 ↗ um yeah we'll we can think a little bit

1:53:58 ↗ about that but I think also that

1:54:00 ↗ clarification of the policies under

1:54:02 ↗ because you're right this doesn't

1:54:03 ↗ necessarily read like a a policy

1:54:09 ↗ can't see

1:54:11 ↗ so this could be somewhere else on the

1:54:14 ↗ policies but since the comp plan is a

1:54:16 ↗ city-wide document and it should then

1:54:19 ↗ um guide like the school district and he

1:54:22 ↗ said fire and rescue and even the

1:54:24 ↗ chamber members or something

1:54:25 ↗ uh it seems to me that we should be

1:54:28 ↗ identifying ways to

1:54:31 ↗ um get them to move in these directions

1:54:33 ↗ as well and that's got to be an

1:54:36 ↗ overarching goal I don't think it fits

1:54:38 ↗ here

1:54:38 ↗ but we have to bring others to the table

1:54:42 ↗ to be successful in meeting our goals

1:54:44 ↗ and to be successful in implementing

1:54:47 ↗ these policies in the comp plan so

1:54:50 ↗ somewhere in the whole document we need

1:54:52 ↗ to bring those other players to the

1:54:54 ↗ table including the state federal

1:54:56 ↗ government and others that are

1:54:57 ↗ interacting in that Community great

1:55:01 ↗ thank you

1:55:03 ↗ chair I'd love to piggyback on what

1:55:05 ↗ Nancy was saying I love the idea of

1:55:07 ↗ having a policy that supports like

1:55:08 ↗ effectively our stakeholders

1:55:10 ↗ um and an example could be obviously the

1:55:12 ↗ recent um massive procurement of

1:55:15 ↗ gas-powered school buses right that was

1:55:18 ↗ that was recently done if we had more

1:55:20 ↗ specific policies in place specifically

1:55:22 ↗ around stakeholders that we're nowhere

1:55:24 ↗ regularly interacting with the school

1:55:25 ↗ district is a great one to to

1:55:28 ↗ specifically kind of tailor some things

1:55:30 ↗ to to be able to say these are our

1:55:32 ↗ community expectations with our

1:55:34 ↗ stakeholders these are the values that

1:55:35 ↗ we have environmentally and um because

1:55:38 ↗ to be able to stand on our leg of saying

1:55:40 ↗ no this isn't something we want to

1:55:42 ↗ support from the administration as they

1:55:44 ↗ come we need to have those policies to

1:55:46 ↗ kind of back that so it's an interesting

1:55:49 ↗ idea to think about the component of

1:55:51 ↗ stakeholders as a policy right how are

1:55:53 ↗ we interacting because we're not

1:55:54 ↗ isolated in any one thing right David

1:55:56 ↗ can work really hard on procurement on

1:55:58 ↗ this one little part right but there's

1:56:00 ↗ all these layers and effects that are

1:56:02 ↗ end up happening and I love the idea of

1:56:04 ↗ talking about as Community policies in

1:56:07 ↗ effect

1:56:08 ↗ great

1:56:10 ↗ thank you yeah great suggestions

1:56:14 ↗ all right I think we are kind of running

1:56:16 ↗ up against time

1:56:18 ↗ um so like we mentioned at the start

1:56:22 ↗ um submitted additional comments please

1:56:24 ↗ send over to Stacy and David

1:56:28 ↗ um and uh let me know or let us know if

1:56:31 ↗ there's any concerns if anyone feels

1:56:33 ↗ like there's anything that needs to be

1:56:34 ↗ discussed in a future meeting uh we can

1:56:37 ↗ take that into consideration but

1:56:39 ↗ otherwise I don't feel that way and you

1:56:41 ↗ don't sending via email please go ahead

1:56:45 ↗ and do that Daisy is there anything else

1:56:46 ↗ that you needed on this topic no

1:56:50 ↗ um nothing else needed just to share too

1:56:52 ↗ that David and I are in regular contact

1:56:54 ↗ with our

1:56:56 ↗ um East Side cities in particular

1:56:59 ↗ um and really learning from them seeing

1:57:01 ↗ what kind of goals and policies they're

1:57:02 ↗ putting in place and they're doing the

1:57:04 ↗ same for us so we're doing a lot of

1:57:06 ↗ sharing you may see some new goals or

1:57:08 ↗ policies emerge if we get some good

1:57:10 ↗ ideas from our neighboring Partners but

1:57:12 ↗ for some of those suggestions tonight

1:57:14 ↗ we'll also see if they have anything

1:57:16 ↗ already drafted that's relevant we could

1:57:18 ↗ bring to you I'll send out some next

1:57:21 ↗ steps over email and that request for

1:57:23 ↗ written comments and then I'll also work

1:57:25 ↗ with Jamie as well as Steven to

1:57:27 ↗ determine if we'll do a special meeting

1:57:30 ↗ in the early fall or if we can spend

1:57:33 ↗ more time and cover this at our October

1:57:35 ↗ meeting

1:57:37 ↗ foreign

1:57:41 ↗ agenda items to reports

1:57:44 ↗ great um yeah as I'm uh trying to do now

1:57:48 ↗ at each meeting our last meeting I think

1:57:50 ↗ it was a written update because we ran

1:57:51 ↗ out of time

1:57:52 ↗ um but just want to provide some Council

1:57:54 ↗ updates uh the most relevant thing

1:57:58 ↗ that's coming up for Council in the next

1:58:01 ↗ couple of weeks is that on Monday they

1:58:04 ↗ will have the community energy and

1:58:06 ↗ efficiency program Grant on the consent

1:58:08 ↗ agenda that's to approve funds for the

1:58:11 ↗ fuel switching incentive for our heat

1:58:13 ↗ pump campaign it's a fifteen hundred

1:58:15 ↗ dollar incentive

1:58:17 ↗ for moderate income households that's

1:58:19 ↗ going to be run through City of Issaquah

1:58:22 ↗ the other item that's coming up at a

1:58:25 ↗ council committee on Tuesday is the

1:58:27 ↗ Pioneer program

1:58:29 ↗ um General Jen Davis Hayes our economic

1:58:31 ↗ development manager will speaking we'll

1:58:33 ↗ be speaking with the council committee

1:58:35 ↗ on that topic I'm flagging that because

1:58:38 ↗ she did also provide a written report

1:58:42 ↗ um to the board on sustainability

1:58:43 ↗ incentives related to the Pioneer

1:58:46 ↗ program

1:58:48 ↗ um and then just wanted to flag those

1:58:50 ↗ two written reports that you received

1:58:52 ↗ one on six PPD from our Public Works

1:58:54 ↗ team please feel free to reach out to

1:58:56 ↗ Julie uh with any questions on that

1:59:00 ↗ um and the second one as I just

1:59:02 ↗ mentioned from our economic development

1:59:04 ↗ team on sustainable incentives for

1:59:06 ↗ Central Issaquah related to the Pioneer

1:59:09 ↗ program

1:59:09 ↗ she's planning to either come to our

1:59:12 ↗ October meeting to talk more about this

1:59:14 ↗ or provide a more in-depth briefing for

1:59:17 ↗ the board in October

1:59:21 ↗ um and then just wanted to flag a couple

1:59:22 ↗ more items upcoming topics for the

1:59:24 ↗ environmental board uh digging further

1:59:27 ↗ into the comp plan that is going to be a

1:59:29 ↗ focus over the next few months so we'll

1:59:31 ↗ be continuing to talk about the

1:59:33 ↗ environment element as well as related

1:59:35 ↗ goals and policies and other elements

1:59:37 ↗ we'll also get a sneak preview on the

1:59:40 ↗ greenhouse gas inventory soon and then

1:59:43 ↗ David and I'll be preparing a report on

1:59:46 ↗ the icap for Council in October and we

1:59:49 ↗ will share that with the board as well

1:59:53 ↗ um and then yeah go ahead I have a

1:59:55 ↗ question on the Pioneer program am I

1:59:58 ↗ understanding correctly that the city is

2:00:00 ↗ evaluating ways to incentivize more

2:00:02 ↗ development but potentially there's some

2:00:04 ↗ strings attached and we're proposing

2:00:06 ↗ potential strength that would be

2:00:07 ↗ attachment

2:00:09 ↗ that's my understanding I've had about a

2:00:12 ↗ 10-minute conversation with Jen about

2:00:14 ↗ that but one option for incentives is

2:00:17 ↗ sustainability incentives and so I think

2:00:19 ↗ there's going to be some further

2:00:22 ↗ discussions on if that is an incentive

2:00:24 ↗ that is included and if so we would

2:00:27 ↗ definitely engage the board on what

2:00:28 ↗ those might look like

2:00:32 ↗ um and then just wanted to highlight two

2:00:35 ↗ exciting things uh this Saturday if

2:00:38 ↗ you're not aware of salmon on Sunset at

2:00:40 ↗ the fish hatchery from 10 to 6

2:00:43 ↗ um it's their second annual one it was a

2:00:45 ↗ really great event last year I'm excited

2:00:48 ↗ to see it this year we will have the

2:00:50 ↗ climate action challenge Booth out there

2:00:53 ↗ and then the last thing is Dave and I

2:00:56 ↗ will have a new uh team member

2:00:59 ↗ um Kathleen Hillary she's an Americorps

2:01:01 ↗ Civic spark fellow she's going to be

2:01:03 ↗ starting with us next week she'll be

2:01:05 ↗ with us for 11 months she's really going

2:01:08 ↗ to be focusing in on climate resiliency

2:01:10 ↗ and that will part of her work will

2:01:13 ↗ include supporting us and getting

2:01:15 ↗ through the climate resilience goals and

2:01:17 ↗ policies for the new element of the comp

2:01:19 ↗ plan so we'll have her join a future

2:01:21 ↗ meeting soon

2:01:23 ↗ um but excited to have her on and her

2:01:26 ↗ focus of on the climate resilience work

2:01:31 ↗ that is it for reports and updates any

2:01:35 ↗ questions from the board

2:01:44 ↗ and lastly just wanted to thank Chris

2:01:46 ↗ Chris took time out of his evening to be

2:01:50 ↗ with us given day when I couldn't be

2:01:53 ↗ there

2:01:53 ↗ um so huge thank you to Chris and then

2:01:56 ↗ just an early congrats to Jamie and and

2:01:59 ↗ David and good luck this weekend

2:02:03 ↗ thank you Stacy and thank you Chris I

2:02:06 ↗ think unless there's any other business

2:02:09 ↗ from the board

2:02:11 ↗ Cena we are adjourned thank you everyone

2:02:15 ↗ thank you

Approved minutes

The minutes PDF below is the canonical record. Structured parsing of attendance and motions for this body's minutes format is not yet implemented — open the PDF for the full content.

Open PDF