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

Extracted from the next meeting's packet, where this meeting's minutes were approved as a consent-calendar attachment.

Open PDF

Attendance

Council / Members (11)

Jamie Finch

Nancy Davidson

Anne Newcomb

Prajakta Ghatpande

Tom Anderson

Ashwin Kannan

Janet Wall

Joy Lewis

Dixie Bair

Don McQuilliams, Vice Chair – excused absence

Ashwin Manoharan* - unexcused absence

Staff (2)

Stacy Vynne McKinstry, Sustainability Manager

David Reedy, Sustainability Coordinator

Excused

Alix Lee-Tigner

Audience commenters (1)

ANN FLETCHER

Recommendations & actions (11)

Sentences extracted from the narrative containing words like recommended, requested, directed, moved, or approved. Best-effort — verify against the full minutes for context.

The minutes were approved as presented by unanimous consent.
FLETCHER recommended adding policies to the Comprehensive Plan that specifically address existing building emissions with actionable targets.
MARSH recommended that staff do not strip guiding language from the comprehensive plan that would be needed for implementation.
JONATHAN SMITH requested that the Environmental Board advocate to the Washington State Legislature on two issues.
Board Member LEWIS requested a list of buildings that are excluded from the assessment.
Additionally, Board Member LEWIS noted that not all electricity is green and so recommended staff continue exploring opportunities for securing electricity from renewable sources and identify tracking opportunities to…
Board Member ANDERSON asked for clarification on the target highlighted in the ICAP which directed the City to use renewable energy for all municipal buildings by
Board Member PRAJAKTA seconded the motion.
All regular Board Members presented voted to approve the recommendation to Council.
Additionally, Board Member FINCH recommended adding a financial cutoff that would necessitate more stringent review based on the SPP.
Board Member ANDERSON asked staff to consider additional means to trace action implementation.