Environmental Board · Wednesday, September 10, 2025 · City Council Digest

2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Minutes of August 13, 2025

packet pp.3–4

Open packet at p.3 ↗

Staff report:

APPROVAL OF MINUTES a) 08-13-25 Environmental Board Minutes Page [1] CITY OF ISSAQUAH Environmental Board 6:30 PM Tibbetts Manor, 750 17th Ave. August 13, 2025 MINUTES NW, Issaquah

4. AGENDA ITEMS

Municipal Building Decarbonization / Fuel Transition Assessment (I)

30 min · David Reedy, Sustainability Coordinator · packet pp.5–29

Topics: Climate

Open packet at p.5 ↗

Staff report:

This Informational Update provides a

Sustainable Building and Infrastructure Policy (D, A)

45 min · David Reedy, Sustainability Coordinator · packet pp.31–164

Topics: Climate

Open packet at p.31 ↗

Staff report:

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

Climate Action Plan Update Progress & Next Steps (D)

20 min · Stacy Vynne McKinstry, Sustainability Manager · packet pp.165–170

Topics: Climate

Previously discussed: City Council Regular Meeting · Dec 6, 2021

Open packet at p.165 ↗

Staff report:

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

5. REPORTS

Engagement with Chefchaouen, Morocco n/a

2500 segments .txt ↗

0:02 ↗ somewhere in New York. I forgot the name

0:04 ↗ of the school, the

0:09 ↗ recording. All right. Um, good. My name

0:11 ↗ is Don Mc Williams. I'm going to be

0:13 ↗ chairing the meeting tonight of the

0:14 ↗ September 10th environmental board

0:16 ↗ meeting. Um, this is a hybrid meeting.

0:19 ↗ So, for those of you in the room, board

0:21 ↗ members, if you have questions, please

0:22 ↗ stick your sign up. For those of you

0:23 ↗ online, I don't see anybody online yet.

0:27 ↗ Um, just raise your hand.

0:34 ↗ Thanks. We had minutes attached to this.

0:36 ↗ They were short. Is there any changes to

0:38 ↗ the minutes?

0:52 ↗ take us to attendance.

0:55 ↗ Uh we have a lot of folks on wonderful

0:57 ↗ vacations or getting married. So we have

0:59 ↗ a very small group today. I'll just go

1:01 ↗ through those that are present and then

1:03 ↗ go through the applices. Um Tommy

1:06 ↗ Anderson

1:07 ↗ >> here

1:11 ↗ >> oh sorry skipped Tommy Divia

1:13 ↗ >> here. Uh Karen P.

1:16 ↗ >> Mina June is possibly joining us online.

1:21 ↗ Uh Don Mc Williams

1:22 ↗ >> here

1:23 ↗ >> and John Smith

1:24 ↗ >> here.

1:25 ↗ >> And then for excused absences we have

1:28 ↗ Nancy Davidson, Dixie Bear, Alex Lee

1:31 ↗ Tigner and Nukem and Keith.

1:34 ↗ But we do have quum and John will be

1:36 ↗ sitting in as a regular member today.

1:43 ↗ >> Hearing that changes the minutes will be

1:45 ↗ approved.

1:49 ↗ >> What comments want to comment tonight?

1:51 ↗ >> I would love to.

1:52 ↗ >> Is it five minutes now?

1:54 ↗ >> Yes. Yeah. If you

1:57 ↗ wanted

1:59 ↗ Yeah. Pick you up better. Right there is

2:01 ↗ a good thing. Sure.

2:09 ↗ Is this good? Yep.

2:11 ↗ >> Super. All right. Well, um I'm glad to

2:14 ↗ be here. I'm glad for all of you being

2:16 ↗ on the environmental board and uh uh my

2:19 ↗ name is Annne Fletcher and uh I'm a

2:21 ↗ 37year resident of Isiqua and I work

2:24 ↗ with the people for climate action uh

2:27 ↗ group and I'm in uh lead the Isiqua

2:30 ↗ chapter. Um, just for those of you that

2:32 ↗ don't know, the PCA, which is the

2:34 ↗ acronym for people for climate action,

2:37 ↗ is a nonprofit organization and it's

2:39 ↗ coalition of 13 city chapters in King

2:42 ↗ County. And our purpose is to work with

2:44 ↗ the local governments to meet the state,

2:47 ↗ county, and city goals to reduce

2:49 ↗ greenhouse gas emissions. Big goal.

2:53 ↗ Um, but we are all just citizens,

2:55 ↗ ordinary citizens like you. Um, with

2:58 ↗ various professions and backgrounds. um

3:01 ↗ and our experiences and investigation

3:03 ↗ have just led us to feel really strongly

3:05 ↗ about this and be willing to put in time

3:08 ↗ and effort um on it. Um and uh so uh

3:14 ↗ since I just a little bit of background

3:16 ↗ for you, a little context. Um PCA

3:18 ↗ started in 2015 and we uh have provided

3:22 ↗ information and advocacy to our local uh

3:26 ↗ and regional elected officials and

3:29 ↗ relevant staff members

3:32 ↗ and um and our communities. Um we

3:35 ↗ advocated for the establishment of an

3:37 ↗ environmental board in the Sagar. Uh and

3:40 ↗ we collaborated with the city on two

3:43 ↗ community climate convenings which were

3:45 ↗ wonderful. Got input from all the

3:47 ↗ community uh before the first climate

3:51 ↗ action plan was established. Uh we

3:54 ↗ participate in the annual sustainability

3:56 ↗ fairs and um occasionally we provide

4:00 ↗ letters of support for hidden grant

4:02 ↗ applications just a variety of things

4:04 ↗ whatever we can do to help. Um we have

4:08 ↗ contributed to the passage and

4:10 ↗ implementation of the current climate

4:12 ↗ action plan for the city. Um and uh we

4:16 ↗ are especially focused on the variety of

4:18 ↗ ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

4:22 ↗ Um, we have witnessed over this last

4:25 ↗ five years, our cities and our counties

4:28 ↗ strive very hard to implement the plans

4:32 ↗ that were set out and our greenhouse gas

4:35 ↗ inventories unfortunately are showing

4:37 ↗ that we are not we are not reducing our

4:40 ↗ emissions

4:42 ↗ um at all or not enough for sure. Um and

4:47 ↗ so this is based on our regular

4:50 ↗ inventories and uh we realize we have a

4:53 ↗ lot of hindrances, a lot of challenges.

4:55 ↗ We have systems in our country that

4:57 ↗ don't aren't set up. Our society is not

5:00 ↗ set up. There's conflicts um in our

5:03 ↗ country and we have unprecedented growth

5:06 ↗ in our area and we have a lot of

5:09 ↗ factors. But it's still possible to do

5:12 ↗ this with a more collaborative approach.

5:14 ↗ So our idea is to collaborate across all

5:18 ↗ levels of government and to kind of take

5:19 ↗ a fresh approach. Um it uh the King

5:23 ↗ County um is doing an update on their

5:26 ↗ plan as well. So looking at that, they

5:29 ↗ are um scaling up

5:32 ↗ and accelerating. That's what uh the

5:34 ↗ head of the timeout office told me when

5:36 ↗ I met with her last month. It was scale

5:39 ↗ up and accelerate. that's was was their

5:42 ↗ mandate from the county. Um and they

5:45 ↗ know that increasing collaboration with

5:48 ↗ them, the cities, the community is going

5:50 ↗ to be a key to success.

5:52 ↗ So, uh currently is many other cities

5:55 ↗ are also updating the climate action

5:57 ↗ plans and I know you're involved in

5:58 ↗ that. So, I wanted to be following that.

6:01 ↗ Um and I think this is a great

6:04 ↗ opportunity to do a lot of of good

6:06 ↗ things in the plan and there are many

6:08 ↗ many good things in the plan but in

6:10 ↗ particular our focus is to significantly

6:12 ↗ reduce emissions within the next five

6:14 ↗ years and so to that end coming to my

6:17 ↗ final point here the PCA um created a

6:20 ↗ task force to to and spent about five

6:23 ↗ months researching and identifying 12

6:25 ↗ critical actions that our local

6:28 ↗ governments um can implement that would

6:31 ↗ be the most crucial to getting this to

6:34 ↗ happen. And they're not always the

6:35 ↗ easiest ones,

6:37 ↗ but most of our emissions are from

6:38 ↗ buildings and transportation. So, five

6:40 ↗ of the actions focus on a smooth

6:43 ↗ transition to clean energy buildings.

6:46 ↗ And five actions work similarly with

6:49 ↗ transportation and two of the actions

6:51 ↗ are overarching and foundational to all

6:54 ↗ the other things happening. And those

6:56 ↗ two are having sufficient dedicated

6:59 ↗ financial resources to do these things.

7:01 ↗ And the other is community education and

7:04 ↗ involvement.

7:06 ↗ So because all these actions kind of

7:08 ↗ work together and they acrewue

7:09 ↗ incrementally over time, it's really

7:11 ↗ important for government to start on all

7:13 ↗ of them um as soon as possible to get

7:17 ↗ the necessary emissions reductions over

7:19 ↗ time. So Stacy and David can send this

7:23 ↗ PCA report to you. I sent it to them. Um

7:26 ↗ I I do suggest that you not be

7:28 ↗ overwhelmed by it because we you know

7:30 ↗ how these things are. But you know kind

7:32 ↗ of look at the read the introduction and

7:34 ↗ um and look at the table of contents

7:36 ↗ just to get the idea of what are the

7:38 ↗ actions and see how they fit with and

7:41 ↗ and of course Stacy and David have

7:43 ↗ already read it and they are familiar

7:45 ↗ and can answer questions and I'm happy

7:47 ↗ to answer questions but I do hope to

7:48 ↗ come back sometime and discuss a little

7:50 ↗ bit further with you um in a way that

7:52 ↗ would work out with the board. um what

7:54 ↗ these might be and how they might fit

7:56 ↗ into it's a cost climate action plan.

7:58 ↗ So, thank you.

8:00 ↗ >> Okay,

8:06 ↗ we have three topics tonight. Um

8:07 ↗ municipal building decarbonization and

8:10 ↗ fuel transition assessment. Um

8:13 ↗ that'sformational only. Um and we're

8:16 ↗ report on sustainable building and

8:17 ↗ infrastructure um policy originally that

8:20 ↗ we're going to take action now because

8:22 ↗ the small group Stacy's asked that we

8:24 ↗ just kind of reserve for comment tonight

8:26 ↗ take action another time. Then the third

8:29 ↗ thing is climate action and update

8:31 ↗ progress next steps. So um David is

8:34 ↗ going to start us off.

8:37 ↗ >> So I have the first two topics. Um it is

8:42 ↗ going to be a pretty deep dive into

8:45 ↗ um municipal work and municipal

8:48 ↗ buildings

8:50 ↗ um

8:53 ↗ uh for the for my presentations today.

8:56 ↗ Um so for this first uh presentation

9:00 ↗ this one is informational only. I'm

9:02 ↗ going to ask that um we save questions

9:05 ↗ until the end. I'll get through it.

9:07 ↗ there uh is a lot of information and

9:09 ↗ details in it, but at the end we can

9:11 ↗ kind of go through all questions for the

9:13 ↗ next pres presentation about the

9:14 ↗ sustainable building infrastructure

9:16 ↗ policy. Um I'm happy to take questions

9:18 ↗ as we go.

9:21 ↗ So um the

9:25 ↗ uh municipal building decarbonization

9:28 ↗ assessment uh was passed in early 2024.

9:32 ↗ Um and we were able to hire a

9:35 ↗ consultant. We worked with McDonald

9:36 ↗ Miller for the actual work. Um, and that

9:38 ↗ work was completed throughout most of

9:40 ↗ 2024.

9:42 ↗ Um, in early 2025, it the report was

9:45 ↗ turned over to city staff. We did um

9:47 ↗ city staff assessment of the information

9:49 ↗ of the report. Um, and then we also

9:52 ↗ worked before bringing it back to the

9:53 ↗ environmental board, we and city

9:55 ↗ council, we worked very hard to

9:57 ↗ incorporate the results of that

9:59 ↗ assessment and the results of that uh,

10:01 ↗ staff assessment into um, our capital

10:04 ↗ improvement plan. Um, and so that's one

10:07 ↗ of the reasons why it's coming to at

10:09 ↗ this point. We were able to get a lot of

10:12 ↗ uh, information and projects into that

10:14 ↗ plan and I'll be talking about that um,

10:16 ↗ a little bit later today. And then I'll

10:18 ↗ also note that uh this uh is a

10:21 ↗ presentation to the environmental board

10:23 ↗ today and I'll be going to city council

10:25 ↗ to present um roughly these same slides

10:28 ↗ uh on Monday.

10:31 ↗ So as a little bit of background um and

10:34 ↗ brought up our greenhouse gas inventory.

10:36 ↗ This is actually an image of our 2022

10:39 ↗ municipal greenhouse government

10:41 ↗ operations um greenhouse gas inventory.

10:44 ↗ And it might be familiar to folks who've

10:46 ↗ been on the board for a little while and

10:47 ↗ for a few years or it might be new to

10:49 ↗ those who have joined uh more recently,

10:52 ↗ but this was actually the first

10:53 ↗ inventory that the city has ever done

10:55 ↗ that address greenhouse gas emissions

10:57 ↗ associated with city operations. As a

11:00 ↗ note, we are updating our greenhouse gas

11:02 ↗ inventory for municipal operations now

11:05 ↗ um for uh the 2024 year um and we expect

11:09 ↗ those results in early 2026 and that

11:12 ↗ will be coming to the board early next

11:14 ↗ year.

11:15 ↗ But so the real focus of today's

11:19 ↗ conversation on fuel transition

11:21 ↗ assessment which is uh what the report

11:24 ↗ uh for this um was called um is really

11:28 ↗ on the natural gas use associated in

11:31 ↗ city facilities. Right? So you can see

11:34 ↗ it is the the largest chunk of our uh

11:37 ↗ municipal greenhouse gas emissions. Um

11:40 ↗ but this is where uh the bulk of the

11:43 ↗ effort for the fuel transition

11:44 ↗ assessment was looking at what would it

11:46 ↗ take to transition our natural gas

11:49 ↗ equipment in city facilities and turn

11:52 ↗ that over to electric equipment.

11:55 ↗ Um there are a couple other areas where

11:57 ↗ the assessment touches on. You'll see

11:59 ↗ this in a little bit. Um but it also

12:01 ↗ assessed uh renewable energy capacity of

12:04 ↗ city facilities. It also looked at

12:06 ↗ electrical capacity for EV charging at

12:08 ↗ city facilities. Um, and then I'll also

12:10 ↗ note that it did cover all city-owned

12:13 ↗ facilities which includes uh leased

12:15 ↗ buildings which are not um represented

12:19 ↗ in the municipal operations greenhouse

12:20 ↗ gas inventory. I can talk about that in

12:23 ↗ a little bit.

12:25 ↗ This again might be a familiar slide.

12:28 ↗ I've I've shown this one in the past,

12:30 ↗ but this is really just showing um the

12:33 ↗ multiple levels of facilities

12:35 ↗ assessments um that we've been doing

12:37 ↗ along with the facilities team and how

12:40 ↗ these facilities assessments um work

12:42 ↗ together to help us understand our

12:44 ↗ decarbonization pathways at city

12:46 ↗ facilities. The biggest circle, the

12:48 ↗ first thing we did was really it's

12:50 ↗ called benchmarking, which is really

12:52 ↗ just getting an understanding what is

12:53 ↗ the energy use at our facilities and

12:56 ↗ where the fuel transition assessment is.

12:58 ↗ It's kind of that smallest circle right

12:59 ↗ now, but it's after we've done

13:01 ↗ benchmarking, looked at the condition of

13:03 ↗ our facilities, looked at our energy um

13:06 ↗ use and the opportunities to find energy

13:08 ↗ efficiency, we went down to the fuel

13:11 ↗ transition assessment, which was a

13:12 ↗ deeper dive into um what would it

13:15 ↗ actually take to transition again off of

13:18 ↗ natural gas equipment to electric

13:20 ↗ equipment. There could be smaller

13:22 ↗ circles in here because um this

13:24 ↗ assessment was uh a high level look at

13:28 ↗ uh 70 pieces of equipment across civic

13:31 ↗ uh across all of our city facilities. Um

13:33 ↗ and a lot of that equipment uh

13:35 ↗ transition will require um some in uh

13:38 ↗ indepth design engineering analyses um

13:43 ↗ etc as we get into the actual work of

13:45 ↗ implementing this this plan.

13:50 ↗ So, the purpose of the assessment, the

13:52 ↗ reason we really did this is um there's

13:55 ↗ a couple reasons. One was to demonstrate

13:57 ↗ city leadership in climate action. Um we

14:00 ↗ want to make sure that we are leading by

14:02 ↗ example. We're not just telling people

14:03 ↗ to electrify their homes or to um take

14:08 ↗ uh climate action in in their own

14:10 ↗ personal lives. But the city really

14:11 ↗ wants to demonstrate that we are a

14:13 ↗ leader um in this as well. We are

14:17 ↗ advancing progress towards ICAP targets.

14:19 ↗ Um even though the city is a small

14:22 ↗ percentage of of uh citywide greenhouse

14:24 ↗ gas emissions, um everything that we can

14:26 ↗ do to bring down our own greenhouse gas

14:28 ↗ emissions helps us towards our city

14:30 ↗ targets. And then the third bit is to

14:33 ↗ help staff understand and get a sense

14:35 ↗ around what is it actually going to take

14:38 ↗ to implement efforts to electrify our

14:41 ↗ city buildings and develop renewable

14:42 ↗ energy projects.

14:46 ↗ Uh we this project covered 23 city-owned

14:50 ↗ facilities and as I mentioned before it

14:51 ↗ did cover city facilities that are owned

14:54 ↗ by the city um but operated by other

14:57 ↗ parties or leased out and for some of

14:59 ↗ those facilities um uh they are the ones

15:03 ↗ responsible the the leased entity is

15:05 ↗ responsible for some of the equipment

15:07 ↗ upgrades. So in that those cases, this

15:09 ↗ is to help us understand

15:12 ↗ um what are the opportunities when

15:14 ↗ leases are renewed, what are the

15:15 ↗ opportunities if um uh for those for the

15:20 ↗ the least agencies to think about um

15:22 ↗ when they do get to make changes to

15:24 ↗ their uh to the to our facilities, etc.

15:28 ↗ But we reviewed electrification of

15:30 ↗ existing fossil fuel equipment. Um there

15:33 ↗ was an assessment of facility electrical

15:35 ↗ capacity. So is there electrical

15:38 ↗ capacity to even consider electrifying

15:41 ↗ our equipment? Doing a high level solar

15:43 ↗ analysis for every single facility that

15:45 ↗ the city owns and then also looking at

15:48 ↗ opportunities for electric vehicle

15:50 ↗ infrastructure and then recommended

15:52 ↗ actions. um our contract, our consultant

15:55 ↗ was able to take a look at all of these

15:57 ↗ materials and look at it within the

15:58 ↗ context of other facilities assessment

16:00 ↗ we've done and make some recommendations

16:03 ↗ around what are some higher and lower

16:04 ↗ priority projects for us to consider.

16:08 ↗ When we got the report from uh uh

16:11 ↗ McDonald Miller, we uh did additional

16:14 ↗ analysis on it. So we I got to take all

16:17 ↗ of the data, all the information and we

16:19 ↗ were able to um evaluate cost to impact

16:23 ↗ ratios. So how much does a project cost

16:25 ↗ to compared to how much natural gas uh

16:28 ↗ reduction it would actually achieve for

16:29 ↗ us? Consider what are our priority

16:31 ↗ projects, right? So what are the

16:33 ↗ projects um that uh are the equipment is

16:38 ↗ is going to be failing soon or might

16:40 ↗ need to be replaced on a sooner timeline

16:42 ↗ than some others. And then we were also

16:44 ↗ able to look at the the assessment

16:46 ↗ within the context of other facilities

16:48 ↗ assessments to think about what is the

16:50 ↗ cost of electrification compared to a a

16:54 ↗ like forlike replacement of a natural

16:56 ↗ gas equipment or um you know compare

17:00 ↗ solar energy costs to the actual designs

17:03 ↗ that we are currently implementing.

17:05 ↗ So the top level takeaway here is that

17:08 ↗ we have with this fuel transition

17:10 ↗ assessment we have a highle baseline

17:12 ↗ understanding of what electrification

17:14 ↗ projects costs and electric uh

17:17 ↗ electrical needs are at different

17:19 ↗ facilities.

17:22 ↗ So now I'm going to jump into some of

17:24 ↗ the findings of the uh assessment.

17:29 ↗ So, some of the top takeaways here are

17:32 ↗ that the cost to transition city

17:33 ↗ equipment from natural gas to electric

17:36 ↗ is very significant. Um, our uh cost

17:40 ↗ estimates from the fuel transition

17:42 ↗ assessment are between 7 uh to $10.5

17:45 ↗ million to transition all equipment to

17:48 ↗ electric. And about half of that cost is

17:50 ↗ for the equipment itself along with

17:52 ↗ labor. And about half of that cost is

17:54 ↗ for the electrical upgrades that are

17:56 ↗ necessary. So you can think about, you

17:58 ↗ know, for the pool, uh, there's not

18:01 ↗ enough power there to, uh, actually put

18:03 ↗ in the equipment that would then heat up

18:05 ↗ that water. Um, so we would need to be

18:08 ↗ do quite a significant electrical

18:10 ↗ upgrade there to actually do this work.

18:12 ↗ Um,

18:14 ↗ I also want to note these costs, uh,

18:17 ↗ although significant are probably a

18:19 ↗ little low. There's a lot of other

18:20 ↗ factors, uh, coming into play. um

18:23 ↗ changes in uh cost of equipment um in in

18:28 ↗ recent months. There's also we would

18:31 ↗ have to do additional analyses and

18:33 ↗ structural analyses and engineering

18:35 ↗ analysis and everything else to make

18:37 ↗ sure that these projects are feasible um

18:39 ↗ that they can be implemented that

18:41 ↗ they're not going to hinder the

18:42 ↗ facilities and the operations of our

18:44 ↗ facilities as well. So, I do want to

18:46 ↗ just be careful also that um although

18:48 ↗ this is a significant amount of money,

18:50 ↗ it is likely an underestimate of how

18:53 ↗ much this would cost. It does cover 70

18:56 ↗ pieces of unique equipment across those

18:58 ↗ 23 buildings. So, there is a lot of

19:00 ↗ equipment here that we're considering um

19:02 ↗ to transition.

19:04 ↗ Um along with um what the greenhouse gas

19:07 ↗ inventory showed, the Julius Bone Pool,

19:10 ↗ public works campus, and the community

19:12 ↗ center are our largest natural gas

19:13 ↗ users. So those three facilities are the

19:16 ↗ ones that we will need to address if we

19:18 ↗ are going to really um knock down our

19:21 ↗ natural gas used at city facilities. And

19:24 ↗ then the community center and city hall

19:26 ↗ are our two facilities that have to

19:28 ↗ comply um with uh tier 2 of the

19:32 ↗ statewide clean buildings act. So that's

19:35 ↗ just another level of considering what

19:37 ↗ does energy use uh at those facilities

19:39 ↗ look like.

19:43 ↗ Based on the additional analysis that

19:45 ↗ staff were able to do um we were able to

19:48 ↗ look at uh look at projects through

19:50 ↗ multiple different lenses. So one lens

19:53 ↗ was what are the projects um at the

19:55 ↗ facility facility level and at the

19:57 ↗ equipment level that have a high impact

20:00 ↗ on natural gas use compared to the cost

20:02 ↗ of the work that they're doing. So we've

20:04 ↗ identified a number of different

20:06 ↗ projects and I do want to note a number

20:07 ↗ of those are leased facilities. So again

20:10 ↗ those are some of the facilities we have

20:11 ↗ less control over. Um but there are also

20:14 ↗ a number of um uh facilities there that

20:18 ↗ are owned and operated by the city that

20:20 ↗ we get to um really dig into uh for

20:23 ↗ electrification.

20:25 ↗ Additionally, as I mentioned, overall

20:27 ↗ the the sites that have the largest

20:29 ↗ impact are going to be the pool, public

20:31 ↗ works campus, and the community center.

20:37 ↗ Next,

20:39 ↗ um, for city for solar energy potential,

20:43 ↗ we were able to look again across all of

20:45 ↗ our city facilities to see what is our

20:47 ↗ potential for solar energy generation

20:50 ↗ across the city uh um facilities. Um,

20:54 ↗ and our estimates are that we could put

20:56 ↗ about 1.1 megawatts of solar generation

20:59 ↗ capacity on our city facilities. Um, and

21:01 ↗ that would represent about 31% of all of

21:04 ↗ our city electrical use, current

21:06 ↗ electrical use. Now, we also have to

21:08 ↗ think about as we're electrifying our

21:09 ↗ equipment, our electric use increases,

21:12 ↗ but as of right now, this that would be

21:14 ↗ about 1.1 uh 31% of current electric

21:17 ↗ use. Again, the cost of implementing

21:20 ↗ that much solar is quite significant.

21:22 ↗ Um, 4.1 to 5.5 million. So um what staff

21:28 ↗ have been able to do um is think about

21:31 ↗ what does prioritization of these

21:32 ↗ projects look like? Where can we have um

21:36 ↗ higher investment um to uh impact ratio

21:41 ↗ more cost-effective projects? Where do

21:43 ↗ we have new roofs already so that we can

21:46 ↗ u prevent the situation of putting on

21:48 ↗ solar panels and taking them off as we

21:50 ↗ need to redo the roof and things like

21:52 ↗ that. And one of the things that we've

21:54 ↗ identified is that if we continue the

21:56 ↗ amount of investment that the city is

21:58 ↗ currently putting into solar energy

22:00 ↗ projects um in this bienium um we have a

22:04 ↗ couple projects that we think we can

22:05 ↗ accomplish. So specifically thinking

22:07 ↗ about the senior centering barn both of

22:10 ↗ which are current ongoing projects um

22:12 ↗ and then also putting in solar energy at

22:15 ↗ our public works campus.

22:18 ↗ Um, I did have a note here. If we were

22:20 ↗ to increase the investment that we're

22:22 ↗ putting into solar energy projects at

22:24 ↗ the city level, um, I'm estimating we

22:26 ↗ can probably include, um, additional

22:29 ↗ projects like, uh, uh, solar at city

22:31 ↗ hall, at our parks and facilities shop,

22:33 ↗ and at the Julius Bowen pool as well.

22:37 ↗ Some considerations for um, where where

22:40 ↗ we're thinking about putting in solar

22:42 ↗ energy is that facility use and planning

22:45 ↗ at city buildings is a flux, right? So,

22:48 ↗ um, we are making some changes at our

22:51 ↗ facilities. We're thinking about, um,

22:53 ↗ future use of city hall and general

22:56 ↗ government. And so, we want to be very

22:58 ↗ careful about investing in facilities,

23:01 ↗ um, where the city is going to be at for

23:02 ↗ a long time. And that way, um, again,

23:05 ↗ don't have to kind of make changes very

23:07 ↗ quickly after doing that. Additionally,

23:09 ↗ state support for clean energy seems

23:11 ↗ fairly secure right now. the clean the

23:13 ↗ um climate commitment act was um uh

23:17 ↗ preserved last year. Um but additional

23:19 ↗ support especially at the federal level

23:21 ↗ is uncertain. Um additionally uh

23:25 ↗ renewable energy projects need to be

23:26 ↗ coordinated very closely uh within

23:28 ↗ facility limitations and with other

23:30 ↗ facilities uh projects. So thinking

23:32 ↗ about uh the structural limitations of

23:34 ↗ our facilities, thinking about the

23:36 ↗ existing and future electric use, and

23:38 ↗ then also thinking about how we're

23:39 ↗ coordinating with our utility and how uh

23:42 ↗ their net metering and interconnection

23:44 ↗ rules work

23:47 ↗ for EV charging. Really the high level

23:50 ↗ takeaways here are um many of our

23:52 ↗ facilities do have current electrical

23:54 ↗ capacity for additional EV charging. Um

23:57 ↗ but if we're thinking about the uh DC

24:00 ↗ fast charging, we will have to do um a

24:02 ↗ lot of electrical upgrades.

24:04 ↗ Additionally, we'll have to continue to

24:06 ↗ think about there's capacity for many of

24:09 ↗ our buildings now, but if we're uh

24:11 ↗ transitioning equipment to electric,

24:13 ↗ that will take away some electrical

24:15 ↗ capacity that um and so we might need

24:17 ↗ electrical upgrades if we're planning to

24:19 ↗ put in EV charging. Additionally, it's

24:21 ↗ important to note that although

24:23 ↗ electrification of natural gas equipment

24:25 ↗ is a priority for us um and for the city

24:28 ↗ generally, there are many priorities

24:30 ↗ around electric use at city facilities.

24:33 ↗ Um it is a great example of um

24:36 ↗ additional equipment that might go in

24:38 ↗ that will use electricity. And so we do

24:40 ↗ have to balance electrification of

24:42 ↗ natural gas equipment with the other

24:44 ↗ priorities on uh electric capacity at

24:47 ↗ our facilities.

24:51 ↗ Um, so I'm going to next just kind of

24:54 ↗ highlight a couple of uh some of the

24:58 ↗ work that's been done with this

24:59 ↗ assessment so far. And so the first

25:02 ↗ piece here is just these are projects

25:05 ↗ from the fuel transition assessment that

25:07 ↗ have already been done, right? So these

25:09 ↗ are projects that have been implemented

25:11 ↗ and the hope is that we'll actually get

25:13 ↗ to see the impact of some of this on our

25:15 ↗ 2024 greenhouse gas inventory. just some

25:18 ↗ of these. Um, but we've done work around

25:22 ↗ HVAC and water heater replacements on

25:24 ↗ installing heat pumps. Um, we've

25:27 ↗ installed uh I've mentioned before,

25:29 ↗ we've installed 17 new EV chargers

25:31 ↗ across multiple city facilities.

25:37 ↗ Great. We're almost done. Um for current

25:40 ↗ projects we are currently operating or

25:43 ↗ working on a solar system at Pickering

25:46 ↗ Barn and a solar and battery storage

25:47 ↗ system at the ASqua Senior Center. And

25:50 ↗ the one other one I want to highlight is

25:53 ↗ uh the community center. We're going to

25:55 ↗ be in 2026 we have a funded project to

25:58 ↗ replace the natural gas heating system

26:00 ↗ there for heat pumps. And so as I've

26:02 ↗ mentioned before that is one of our

26:04 ↗ three top natural gas users at this

26:06 ↗ facility at the city. And so um looking

26:09 ↗ to electrify that building is going to

26:11 ↗ have a significant dent in the city's

26:13 ↗ natural gas use.

26:16 ↗ And then all of these projects on the

26:19 ↗ slide are incorporated into our capital

26:22 ↗ improvement plan. So this was a lot of

26:26 ↗ the work that we did over the last

26:27 ↗ spring and summer is we worked very

26:29 ↗ closely with our facilities team. We

26:31 ↗ worked with our public works team and we

26:33 ↗ were able to enter in um uh into our

26:38 ↗ capital improvement plan um projects

26:40 ↗ ranging from water heater replacements

26:43 ↗ up to um electrification of the pool. I

26:47 ↗ do want to note that um many although

26:50 ↗ many of these projects are of these

26:51 ↗ projects are in the capital improvement

26:53 ↗ plan um there does need to be a lot of

26:55 ↗ work um additional work to identify

26:58 ↗ further funding sources conduct analyses

27:00 ↗ to make sure that they're feasible and

27:02 ↗ figure out how they're done um and then

27:04 ↗ also uh figure out kind of how um how

27:09 ↗ we're going to get electricity and all

27:10 ↗ this other stuff. So, a lot of work

27:12 ↗ still needs to be done, but getting them

27:13 ↗ into the capital improvement plan is a

27:15 ↗ great first step.

27:18 ↗ Timing and next step, we are currently

27:19 ↗ working on project implementation, and

27:21 ↗ we're going to continue working on

27:22 ↗ project implementation. The other pieces

27:24 ↗ on this slide are really just showing um

27:27 ↗ we have our budget coming up, the next

27:29 ↗ uh budget process coming up next year.

27:31 ↗ We're going to be working more projects

27:32 ↗ into that. And then the year after that,

27:34 ↗ we'll work on the CIP again, the capital

27:36 ↗ improvement plan. And that cycle is

27:38 ↗ going to continue. So, we're going to

27:39 ↗ continue to do these assessments. We're

27:41 ↗ going to continue to implement projects

27:43 ↗ and every year we're going to be working

27:45 ↗ these projects into um our budgets and

27:48 ↗ our capital improvement budgets.

27:51 ↗ So, uh the conclusions for this whole

27:54 ↗ project and this whole work are that

27:56 ↗ there we've identified some near-term

27:58 ↗ opportunities um that can help us reach

28:00 ↗ our near-term greenhouse gas reduction

28:02 ↗ targets that we can implement here and

28:04 ↗ now. And we are currently doing that.

28:06 ↗ Additionally, major natural gas

28:08 ↗ reduction is really costly, but it is

28:11 ↗ necessary for us to reach our long-term

28:13 ↗ greenhouse gas reduction targets. And so

28:16 ↗ that is just going to require planning

28:18 ↗ um and effort to to think long term

28:20 ↗ about. Additionally, this analysis,

28:22 ↗ that's a base understanding, but there

28:24 ↗ are a lot of other things that we'll

28:26 ↗ need to consider to actually make sure

28:27 ↗ that we can implement these projects

28:29 ↗ successfully. So, uh, we've been able to

28:31 ↗ take this, work these into our capital

28:33 ↗ improvement plans, think about them in

28:35 ↗ our our work plans, and it's helped us

28:37 ↗ understand what else do we need to know,

28:40 ↗ and those are the the uh avenues we're

28:42 ↗ working with our facilities team to

28:44 ↗ explore. Now,

28:46 ↗ that's it for this presentation.

28:50 ↗ That was quite a bit, so thank you for

28:52 ↗ bearing with me. Um, I'm happy to take

28:55 ↗ questions.

29:02 ↗ Uh so back in the day uh solar water

29:06 ↗ heating used to be a big thing and then

29:08 ↗ at that time I'm talking about 30 40

29:11 ↗ years ago it was way more efficient. You

29:14 ↗ would get you could buy a solar

29:15 ↗ collector that heated water for a tenth

29:18 ↗ or less than that of what it would take

29:21 ↗ photovoltaically. Of course solar cell

29:24 ↗ got way cheaper. I don't know is that

29:26 ↗ still a thing? Is that part of something

29:28 ↗ that has been analyzed for high the pool

29:33 ↗ is what I'm talking about? You need hot

29:34 ↗ water, lots of hot water and generating

29:37 ↗ electricity which you then use to heat

29:39 ↗ the water is probably going to cost more

29:43 ↗ of the photo voltage system that directs

29:46 ↗ sunlight to

29:48 ↗ warming the water.

29:50 ↗ Is that under consideration or law?

29:53 ↗ >> Yes. So solar hot water was not

29:55 ↗ considered as part of this study. We do

29:58 ↗ have one facility, fire station 72, had

30:00 ↗ solar hot water panels and um our

30:03 ↗ facilities team has not had great uh

30:06 ↗ relationships with those panels that

30:08 ↗ keep breaking on us. Um for the pool

30:11 ↗ specifically, I have not heard of solar

30:15 ↗ hot water heated pools of the size that

30:17 ↗ we have. Um we are looking to uh Seattle

30:20 ↗ is doing a lot of work around this um to

30:23 ↗ think about how they they can

30:24 ↗ decarbonize their pool. So we are

30:26 ↗ leaning a lot on kind of the work that

30:28 ↗ they're doing to think about um

30:31 ↗ electrification and reducing energy loss

30:33 ↗ of that pool so that we can um have

30:36 ↗ smaller systems there.

30:38 ↗ >> Thank you.

30:41 ↗ >> Um so David few questions here. So the

30:45 ↗ first one is um and I know you touched

30:49 ↗ on this a little bit you know the

30:50 ↗ question of the the whole

30:52 ↗ decarbonization electrification and the

30:56 ↗ the additional electricity demand right

30:58 ↗ so

30:59 ↗ >> does the decarbonization estimate um any

31:03 ↗ consideration for if PAC or you know any

31:07 ↗ other providers are actually able to

31:10 ↗ provide or the increasing electricity

31:13 ↗ demand And is it just PAC or are you

31:15 ↗ looking at additional providers or what

31:18 ↗ is the consideration there?

31:20 ↗ >> Yeah, so that's a great question. This

31:22 ↗ assessment did not look at um energy

31:24 ↗ availability through PSSE. Um

31:27 ↗ excuse me. Um Belleview is looking at

31:30 ↗ energy capacity in the future with PSSE.

31:33 ↗ So they're conducting an assessment that

31:35 ↗ we're going to be looking very closely

31:37 ↗ at to think about um what is energy

31:40 ↗ availability for us uh uh down the line.

31:44 ↗ Um that is one of the things that could

31:46 ↗ be a major barrier for some of these

31:48 ↗ projects, right? Is if we say we've got

31:50 ↗ all the money and we're ready to go and

31:52 ↗ if PSC says hey sorry we don't have the

31:54 ↗ money for you to electrify your pool or

31:56 ↗ public works campus uh or the energy for

31:59 ↗ that then then that will be a hiccup for

32:01 ↗ us. And so that is part of kind of those

32:03 ↗ additional assessments, those long-term

32:05 ↗ conversations

32:07 ↗ um is talking with PSSE about what we're

32:09 ↗ planning to do and what we're hoping to

32:11 ↗ do and getting those conversations for

32:13 ↗ electrical upgrades going early so that

32:15 ↗ we can identify if there are any

32:17 ↗ problems with that. The one other thing

32:19 ↗ that I'll say is um the renewable energy

32:21 ↗ piece can help mitigate some of that

32:23 ↗ energy um demand. So if it's done uh

32:29 ↗ we're doing it right, you know, you

32:30 ↗ could put on some renewable energy on

32:33 ↗ some sites and that can reduce uh the

32:36 ↗ demand and and potentially reduce the uh

32:39 ↗ electrical upgrades necessary. So um

32:41 ↗ that's one other small consideration,

32:43 ↗ but for the most part, especially when

32:45 ↗ it comes to the pool or public works

32:47 ↗ campus for instance, it's not going to

32:49 ↗ be um it's not going to make the a huge

32:53 ↗ difference in kind of those electrical

32:54 ↗ upgrades necessarily,

32:55 ↗ >> right? So I would suggest not only

32:57 ↗ because it will be a barrier but I think

32:59 ↗ the costs also can vary significantly

33:03 ↗ based on what the availability of the

33:05 ↗ electricity is. So you know that would

33:07 ↗ be something you want to closely monitor

33:09 ↗ or closely keep bringing it up. Um and

33:12 ↗ the second point was um so you said um

33:16 ↗ the renewable energy right I'm guessing

33:18 ↗ you don't have any real estimates on how

33:21 ↗ much of the renewable energy will be

33:24 ↗ able to meet how much of the electricity

33:26 ↗ demand do you do? We based on our

33:30 ↗ assessment, we think um if we were to

33:33 ↗ install all of the renewable energy, we

33:35 ↗ think we could um it would meet about

33:38 ↗ 31% of our current electric demands. But

33:40 ↗ then again, as we're electrifying, that

33:43 ↗ electric demand will okay

33:44 ↗ >> increase quite a bit.

33:45 ↗ >> So that's good to know. Um then the

33:48 ↗ other question was do you have any

33:51 ↗ successful solar energy projects in the

33:54 ↗ works or you know getting towards

33:56 ↗ completion in the city of Isma?

33:59 ↗ >> Yes. So um before this year um the

34:03 ↗ city's last successful solar energy

34:06 ↗ project was at fire station 72 which was

34:08 ↗ installed in 2011 I think. Um this year

34:12 ↗ we are in the very final process of um

34:16 ↗ contracting for a solar system at Picker

34:18 ↗ and Barn. Um and then we're getting

34:21 ↗ ready um and that's funded through a mix

34:23 ↗ of city funds, grant funds, and then tax

34:26 ↗ rebates from the federal government. And

34:28 ↗ then uh we have another project, a solar

34:32 ↗ and battery storage project at the West

34:34 ↗ Senior Center, which is fully funded

34:36 ↗ through the Washington State Department

34:37 ↗ of Commerce. Um and we are getting ready

34:41 ↗ to put that project out for proposals

34:44 ↗ soon as well. And so that project will

34:46 ↗ happen um in 2026 for the most part. So

34:50 ↗ the fire station 72 which is you know

34:52 ↗ which was installed in 2011 you do have

34:55 ↗ good data from that to see how much you

34:58 ↗ are actually um what I'm getting at to

35:01 ↗ my last question you know I because just

35:04 ↗ because the costs are too high I was

35:06 ↗ wondering if this um study involves any

35:10 ↗ analysis of cost to benefit ratio in

35:13 ↗ terms of when you will actually rec

35:15 ↗ recoup the full money for

35:17 ↗ decarbonization as well as a solar

35:19 ↗ projects because having that visibility

35:22 ↗ and a clear confident analysis of that

35:25 ↗ will help you you know actually proceed

35:28 ↗ further right.

35:29 ↗ >> Yes. So for the renewable energy piece,

35:32 ↗ we did do um payback analysis of you

35:36 ↗ know if a project costs between X amount

35:39 ↗ and Y amount um what is the payback

35:41 ↗ years the estimated payback years um

35:44 ↗ once we've implemented that project? A

35:47 ↗ lot depends on those federal tax uh

35:50 ↗ credits and those were uh many of them

35:54 ↗ were cut as part of the the bill this

35:56 ↗ summer, the federal bill this summer. So

35:58 ↗ that will impact things for sure. Um,

36:01 ↗ one of the things that we're still

36:02 ↗ hoping on and we've seen success on is

36:04 ↗ getting grants from the state government

36:06 ↗ which will help make those paybacks much

36:09 ↗ shorter. Um, and we're hoping, right,

36:11 ↗ that u say for the senior center

36:13 ↗ project, right, all of the money that

36:15 ↗ we're saving in in uh avoided electrical

36:18 ↗ costs get to go right back into our

36:19 ↗ programming at that site. So that has

36:22 ↗ been a part of the renewable energy

36:24 ↗ analysis.

36:26 ↗ um the payback for the other equipment.

36:30 ↗ Um we didn't quite do a payback um

36:33 ↗ analysis for that because most of that

36:35 ↗ equipment doesn't pay for itself, but um

36:37 ↗ we did do analysis on kind of like what

36:39 ↗ is the the cost differential between

36:42 ↗ like for like natural gas equipment and

36:45 ↗ um what are the best um ratios of cost

36:49 ↗ to impact things like that.

36:51 ↗ Yeah. Yeah, I think that would be good.

36:54 ↗ And seems like, you know, because of the

36:56 ↗ changes in the bills or federal tax

36:58 ↗ credit, it's this will be always kind of

37:00 ↗ a moving target, which I can understand

37:03 ↗ makes it really hard because um but at

37:06 ↗ the same time, you know, I think it all

37:09 ↗ boils down to actually how much is the

37:11 ↗ cost and how you're going to sustain it,

37:14 ↗ right? That's it's all about that. So,

37:16 ↗ yeah, I think I think you guys are doing

37:18 ↗ great. Thank you. All

37:21 ↗ right,

37:23 ↗ questions.

37:25 ↗ >> Is there ever been any studies on the

37:27 ↗ pool as to its energy use uh through

37:31 ↗ different months of the year?

37:33 ↗ And have you ever considered shutting

37:35 ↗ the pool down for say the winter months?

37:38 ↗ Um

37:40 ↗ I yes, we review the energy use of the

37:45 ↗ pool. Um we have had energy and analyses

37:49 ↗ done of the pool kind of looking at um

37:53 ↗ uh

37:55 ↗ of at how their energies kind of looks

37:57 ↗ over the year over a day things like

37:59 ↗ that. We've considered opportunities and

38:02 ↗ what's not included in this is those

38:03 ↗ energy efficiency measures. So, one

38:05 ↗ project that we're um also actively

38:08 ↗ working on right now is to implement

38:10 ↗ pool covers at the the pool, which would

38:11 ↗ actually help save quite a lot of

38:13 ↗ natural gas energy because it helps the

38:15 ↗ prevent the release of of heat from the

38:18 ↗ pool. Um, so we are looking at those

38:20 ↗ energy efficiency opportunities there as

38:22 ↗ well. Um, I cannot say that I've ever

38:26 ↗ heard anybody talk about shutting the

38:27 ↗ pool down over winter. And my guess is

38:30 ↗ that there is still significant use of

38:33 ↗ the pool throughout winter.

38:36 ↗ >> Swim itself on the high school.

38:38 ↗ >> Yeah. You just It seems like a very

38:43 ↗ uh thermally expensive.

38:45 ↗ it capita

38:48 ↗ um

38:50 ↗ place for for the city to maintain

38:54 ↗ um and

38:58 ↗ you know we just sometimes we just need

38:59 ↗ to consume less and I've done some

39:03 ↗ studies in my past on heating and

39:05 ↗ ventilation systems for pools and it

39:08 ↗ just there's just not they just suck to

39:11 ↗ eat huge is it

39:16 ↗ um far greater uh than say the community

39:19 ↗ center in consumption.

39:21 ↗ >> Yeah. So the pool represents about 50%

39:24 ↗ of the natural gas use of city.

39:26 ↗ >> A little less a little less. when you

39:28 ↗ think about the number of people

39:31 ↗ that's

39:32 ↗ I I just to me that just I mean I feel

39:38 ↗ like throwing a chocolate bar in the

39:40 ↗ pool, you know, to to shut it down. But

39:44 ↗ um you know, if you really want to save

39:49 ↗ greenhouse gases, you could shut it down

39:52 ↗ in the winter time for say three or four

39:54 ↗ months. And just that's what people do

39:58 ↗ when they have pools. A lot of people

40:00 ↗ who have outdoor pools, they only use

40:02 ↗ them in the summertime. So there

40:06 ↗ 50% is a lot per 48.

40:11 ↗ >> You think about per capita usage.

40:18 ↗ Any other comments, questions,

40:22 ↗ right? Thank you.

40:24 ↗ >> Thank you.

40:25 ↗ Um I am going to jump over to my next

40:29 ↗ slide show.

40:32 ↗ Um

40:34 ↗ for this one

40:36 ↗ um

40:38 ↗ we are going to be getting into some

40:41 ↗ proposed updates and I'm going to be

40:42 ↗ talking about what some of those

40:44 ↗ proposed updates are. Um, uh, for this

40:47 ↗ presentation, I'm happy to take

40:49 ↗ questions as we go if folks have

40:51 ↗ questions about specific pieces, um, of

40:53 ↗ it, just so we can kind of dive a little

40:55 ↗ deeper in. Can I just

40:57 ↗ >> Yes, go for it.

40:58 ↗ >> Um, just wanted to briefly mention, Don

41:01 ↗ said this in the intro, but we will

41:03 ↗ eventually be taking action on this

41:05 ↗ item. That was going to be a

41:07 ↗ consideration for tonight if the board

41:09 ↗ was ready to move forward. Given the

41:11 ↗ smallest group, we think it's best

41:13 ↗ probably to have the discussion, get

41:15 ↗ your own input. Um, I will reach out to

41:18 ↗ the board members that are not here, ask

41:20 ↗ them to review the video, contact David

41:22 ↗ if they have questions. We do really,

41:26 ↗ um, we would really like to take action

41:28 ↗ in our October meeting because that will

41:31 ↗ keep us on track for council approval

41:34 ↗ before the end of the year, which we're

41:35 ↗ trying to wrap this up before the end of

41:38 ↗ the year and transition in council. So,

41:41 ↗ um, that being said, please share your

41:44 ↗ comments tonight, your feedback. We can

41:46 ↗ meet with you oneonone in between the

41:48 ↗ meetings, but, um, the hope is to take

41:50 ↗ action on this next meeting if if the

41:53 ↗ board's ready to do so.

41:58 ↗ So, um this next presentation is uh to

42:02 ↗ uh consider and and uh look at uh

42:06 ↗ proposed updates to the sustainable

42:08 ↗ building and infrastructure policy at

42:10 ↗ this city. So, um you might remember

42:14 ↗ this did come to the board. Uh Cascadia

42:17 ↗ Consulting brought um their draft

42:20 ↗ recommendation to the board early this

42:22 ↗ year. Um and they ended up taking uh the

42:27 ↗ environmental board's recommendations um

42:29 ↗ recommendations from the senior

42:31 ↗ leadership team putting together a

42:32 ↗ report and then based on that report um

42:35 ↗ city staff were able to um have created

42:38 ↗ um proposed updates to this polic policy

42:41 ↗ and I believe in the uh packet you have

42:44 ↗ both redlined version of the policy

42:46 ↗ clean version of the policy and uh maybe

42:49 ↗ the old version of the policy as well.

42:51 ↗ So um hopefully that uh was not too too

42:55 ↗ confusing there.

42:58 ↗ So some context uh about this policy.

43:01 ↗ The existing sustainable building and

43:03 ↗ infrastructure policy was adopted in

43:05 ↗ 2004. So it's 21 years old at this

43:08 ↗ point. Um and it was updating this

43:11 ↗ policy was recommended in both the 2018

43:13 ↗ sustainable building action strategy as

43:15 ↗ well as called out as an action within

43:18 ↗ the climate action plan. Um and so we

43:21 ↗ are we are trying to actually accomplish

43:24 ↗ it at this time and and um put together

43:27 ↗ a policy that we think will help us uh

43:30 ↗ move forward with thinking about uh

43:32 ↗ buildings and infrastructure.

43:34 ↗ Buildings as you saw in our uh my

43:36 ↗ previous presentation are the primary

43:38 ↗ source of greenhouse gas emissions in

43:40 ↗ government operations around 48% 2022.

43:44 ↗ Um and then as I mentioned in fall and

43:47 ↗ spring, Cascadia Consulting develops uh

43:49 ↗ recommendations for uh updating the the

43:52 ↗ building and infrastructure policy.

43:56 ↗ So diving into those recommendations,

44:01 ↗ um the first recommendation was to

44:03 ↗ pursue a phased approach to an updated

44:06 ↗ policy.

44:08 ↗ So this recommendation recognizes um

44:11 ↗ staff capacity, budgetary constraints

44:14 ↗ and the training necessary to really

44:17 ↗ support um incorporating sustainability

44:21 ↗ practices into our uh work with city

44:24 ↗ facilities as well as our work with

44:26 ↗ infrastructure. And one of the reasons

44:29 ↗ around this as well is many of the facil

44:31 ↗ the cities uh and jurisdictions that

44:33 ↗ have um really robust uh building and

44:37 ↗ infrastructure policy policy sustainable

44:39 ↗ building and infrastructure policies are

44:41 ↗ much larger than the city of Isiqua.

44:43 ↗ They might have um dedicated staff

44:45 ↗ members specifically to these types of

44:48 ↗ policies etc. So their first

44:50 ↗ recommendation is a phased approach to

44:52 ↗ implementation and to focus on some of

44:54 ↗ those early wins that we can accomplish

44:57 ↗ to pilot projects and really try out the

45:00 ↗ ways that we can incorporate these

45:02 ↗ principles into projects.

45:04 ↗ The second recommendation is to build

45:07 ↗ staff and project capacity for

45:09 ↗ implementation. Again, that's thinking

45:10 ↗ about pilot projects. It's thinking

45:12 ↗ about staff training. Um it's thinking

45:14 ↗ about how can the sustainability team

45:17 ↗ really support departments and staff

45:19 ↗ across the city um so that we can

45:22 ↗ incorporate these sustainability

45:23 ↗ principles into uh projects across the

45:27 ↗ city.

45:29 ↗ And so the idea here is that uh from

45:31 ↗ from Cascadia was to uh build capacity

45:34 ↗ over the next couple years, evaluate,

45:37 ↗ see how we're doing, and continue to try

45:39 ↗ and build on that as we're going over

45:41 ↗ the next um uh five years.

45:47 ↗ Before I dive too deep into the policy

45:49 ↗ updates, um one item that I want to just

45:52 ↗ note is that um the policy update is

45:55 ↗ focused on um municipal building and

45:59 ↗ infrastructure projects. The original

46:01 ↗ policy from 2004 talks about both

46:03 ↗ municipal projects and communitywide

46:05 ↗ projects. Um the idea with this policy

46:09 ↗ update is to focus it on the city

46:12 ↗ operations of our projects um with

46:14 ↗ buildings and our projects with

46:16 ↗ infrastructure. So thinking parks,

46:18 ↗ roads, uh pump stations and things like

46:20 ↗ that and really addressing the

46:22 ↗ communitywide

46:24 ↗ um regulations and policies around

46:26 ↗ sustainable building and infrastructure

46:28 ↗ in our city code. So thinking that would

46:31 ↗ be title 18, title 16, and a couple

46:34 ↗ other areas there. So as you'll see, the

46:36 ↗ proposed policy updates are really

46:38 ↗ focused on what are we going to do at

46:40 ↗ the city for these projects.

46:44 ↗ So the first set of changes are to

46:47 ↗ formalize sustainability team support

46:49 ↗ for uh for sustainable building and

46:53 ↗ infrastructure projects across the city.

46:55 ↗ That looks like um supporting uh budget

46:58 ↗ development, having sustainability have

47:00 ↗ a seat at the table with departments

47:02 ↗ across the city to incorporate and

47:04 ↗ support um the incorporation of

47:06 ↗ sustainability principles and ideas into

47:09 ↗ um into budgets. So that when projects

47:12 ↗ come around, there is the budget to make

47:14 ↗ these projects happen. as you saw in my

47:16 ↗ previous presentation for uh facilities

47:19 ↗ electrification projects very costly and

47:21 ↗ so planning ahead with that uh with

47:24 ↗ sustainability team support is is going

47:26 ↗ to be really crucial to think about how

47:28 ↗ do we make sure that there's enough

47:29 ↗ funds that we can implement these

47:31 ↗ projects successfully.

47:33 ↗ Additionally, um sustainability

47:36 ↗ identified u identifies funding and

47:39 ↗ support for staff training. thinking

47:41 ↗ about um as uh much as we like to

47:44 ↗ support staff across departments, really

47:47 ↗ diving deep into sustainability

47:48 ↗ principles for infrastructure projects

47:50 ↗ will require additional staff training

47:52 ↗ for engineers and for um the folks who

47:56 ↗ are going to be out really leading these

47:58 ↗ projects across the city. And then the

48:00 ↗ final piece here is setting up an

48:02 ↗ evaluation uh process and timeline for

48:05 ↗ this policy. The goal here again is that

48:08 ↗ we're not sitting here in 20 more years

48:10 ↗ saying we have to update a policy for

48:12 ↗ 2025, but we're actually actively

48:14 ↗ looking at it and thinking about how is

48:16 ↗ this policy working, what is it doing,

48:19 ↗ what are our uh successes, what are our

48:21 ↗ challenges and how do we change this

48:23 ↗ policy to support those uh changes.

48:27 ↗ So the first set of changes again is

48:29 ↗ around formalizing

48:32 ↗ our sustainability team support for

48:34 ↗ departments across the city.

48:36 ↗ That sustainability team is you too.

48:39 ↗ >> That sustainability team is us too.

48:43 ↗ >> Um yes and then the idea is you know as

48:47 ↗ support and training and everything

48:49 ↗ grows across departments.

48:52 ↗ >> Hopefully yeah we we can take a step

48:54 ↗ back where possible.

48:58 ↗ >> The second set of uh changes is related

49:01 ↗ to sustainability guidance for new

49:03 ↗ buildings and major retrofits. So, uh

49:05 ↗ this was a gap identified in the 2004

49:08 ↗ policy uh where it only really covered

49:11 ↗ um uh large facilities or or medium to

49:15 ↗ large facilities and it actually

49:16 ↗ recommended that um projects get lead

49:19 ↗ silver um certification which was um is

49:23 ↗ a little outdated with our city code.

49:25 ↗ And so the new proposed changes identify

49:29 ↗ um what the requirements would be if the

49:32 ↗ city tackles small facilities projects

49:34 ↗ which are identified as 5,000 ft and

49:36 ↗ under medium projects which are 5,000 to

49:39 ↗ 10,000 ft and then large facility

49:41 ↗ projects. On the small side um the focus

49:46 ↗ is on encouraging sustainability

49:48 ↗ principles in design and implementation.

49:50 ↗ For medium projects, it's to align uh

49:54 ↗ those projects with lead platinum um but

49:56 ↗ not actually requiring certification.

49:59 ↗ Instead requiring that we document it

50:01 ↗ internally and really keep an eye on on

50:04 ↗ uh incorporating um those principles

50:08 ↗ into the project. And the idea there is

50:10 ↗ to allow a little bit of flexibility and

50:11 ↗ reduce the costs associated with

50:13 ↗ certification at SEAL. And then for

50:16 ↗ large facility projects, it aligns with

50:18 ↗ our city code which is currently lead

50:20 ↗ platinum. And then to encourage going

50:23 ↗ beyond that code where we can. And one

50:25 ↗ note again, I mentioned this in my

50:26 ↗ previous conversation, we do have some

50:28 ↗ facilities projects coming up. And so

50:31 ↗ updating these changes, updating this

50:33 ↗ policy now is likely going to we'll be

50:36 ↗ able to test out how it's um working in

50:39 ↗ the next uh five plus years as we tackle

50:44 ↗ those larger facility projects.

50:50 ↗ >> Yeah.

50:51 ↗ >> Um so David, couple of questions. So are

50:54 ↗ any funding changes

50:57 ↗ or the bill changes or anything did it

50:59 ↗ affect your sustainability policy

51:02 ↗ support for the staff basically?

51:06 ↗ >> Um and by uh bill changes like at the

51:09 ↗ federal level.

51:10 ↗ >> Yeah. Or is there any funding changes h

51:13 ↗ has it affected or you guys are just

51:15 ↗ continuing to work as before? That was

51:17 ↗ the question.

51:18 ↗ >> It's a great question. Um we for the

51:21 ↗ most part are are continuing as we were

51:24 ↗ before. Um I think the uncertainty with

51:30 ↗ funding at the federal level and kind of

51:32 ↗ what that is going to be doing to state

51:36 ↗ and local budgets um has generated some

51:41 ↗ um

51:42 ↗ careful thinking among city leadership

51:45 ↗ for policies like this. trying to make

51:47 ↗ sure that um flexibility is built into

51:50 ↗ these so that we can not lose sight of

51:54 ↗ our climate goals but also so that we um

51:58 ↗ can work really hard to uh do what we

52:01 ↗ can within our budget constraints. And

52:02 ↗ so you know a good example of that is

52:04 ↗ with medium facility projects by not

52:06 ↗ requiring certification for lead. it

52:08 ↗ does cut down on the project costs but

52:12 ↗ what we have here is that we still have

52:13 ↗ to align with lead platinum um and we'll

52:16 ↗ be documenting that internally just not

52:18 ↗ going through that certification process

52:20 ↗ so I would say the long answer is we're

52:24 ↗ still forging ahead but it has it is

52:27 ↗ definitely a concern for for departments

52:30 ↗ city leadership

52:32 ↗ >> um and you mentioned that there was

52:34 ↗ phased implementation of this policy so

52:37 ↗ I just wanted to know at what means has

52:41 ↗ the phased implementation already

52:43 ↗ started and are any of the steps already

52:47 ↗ implemented or it's still you know in

52:50 ↗ future.

52:51 ↗ >> Yeah. So when we're talking about phased

52:53 ↗ implementation and and you'll see a

52:55 ↗ little bit of this later for some of the

52:56 ↗ other topics but part of what we're

52:59 ↗ thinking about is say for facilities

53:02 ↗ projects um we have kind of the separate

53:05 ↗ buckets for small facilities, medium

53:06 ↗ facilities, large facilities and um as

53:10 ↗ we evaluate the use of this policy once

53:13 ↗ it's implemented um if we don't find

53:16 ↗ that say the um no certification

53:20 ↗ required for medium-sized facilities is

53:22 ↗ working. That's when we might say go

53:25 ↗ back to council and say, "Look, this is

53:27 ↗ not working. What we actually need to do

53:28 ↗ is strengthen the policy here or

53:31 ↗ identifying other areas where we can

53:33 ↗ strengthen and and build out the policy

53:36 ↗ um in the next iteration as we're

53:38 ↗ evaluating its use. So, nothing in this

53:42 ↗ new policy has been implemented yet

53:44 ↗ other than just kind of what staff are

53:46 ↗ already doing. Um, but the policy has

53:49 ↗ not been adopted yet. So no nothing has

53:51 ↗ been phased in yet.

53:52 ↗ >> And so the sustainable purchasing policy

53:54 ↗ members

53:56 ↗ have in place or are working on is it a

53:58 ↗ part of this or that's a completely

54:00 ↗ separate thing.

54:01 ↗ >> It's a great question. The way I see it

54:04 ↗ is that this policy is actually nestled

54:06 ↗ under the sustainable purchasing policy.

54:08 ↗ Sustainable purchasing policy is very

54:10 ↗ broad overarching saying any city

54:13 ↗ purchasing decision we need to be

54:15 ↗ considering uh sustainability, equity

54:18 ↗ and um economics in those decisions. And

54:22 ↗ the way I see it is this policy gets

54:24 ↗ into more details around well what are

54:26 ↗ we doing actually when it comes to

54:28 ↗ facilities or infrastructure projects

54:30 ↗ itself or equipment change out projects.

54:34 ↗ Um and so I see uh this policy leaning

54:40 ↗ on the sustainable purchasing policy as

54:42 ↗ additional support for why the decisions

54:44 ↗ are going to be made.

54:46 ↗ >> So the reason the thing I was getting at

54:48 ↗ is you know see this is a long-term

54:50 ↗ process.

54:52 ↗ >> Um but and I understand the phased

54:55 ↗ implementation implementation I

54:57 ↗ understand the burdens and you know the

54:59 ↗ uncertainty and everything. What I was

55:01 ↗ getting at is some of the especially

55:03 ↗ sustainable purchasing policy material

55:06 ↗ like materials or items should be a

55:10 ↗ no-brainer that this needs to switch to

55:12 ↗ this and have you guys started working

55:15 ↗ on that or is there any progress on

55:17 ↗ those kinds of things you know which

55:19 ↗ would be a simple swap which doesn't

55:22 ↗ have to wait for 10 years to you know

55:24 ↗ come into effect.

55:27 ↗ Um

55:30 ↗ yes. Um so the sustainable purchasing

55:33 ↗ policy covers everything from paper to

55:38 ↗ new facilities, right? Um it does not

55:42 ↗ specifically call out items that must go

55:45 ↗ from A to B. Um but through use of that

55:49 ↗ policy we are

55:53 ↗ doing things like um

55:56 ↗ um thinking about the some of those easy

55:59 ↗ win switches right like compostable

56:02 ↗ um compostable event uh serviceware and

56:06 ↗ things like that. Um we are uh thinking

56:09 ↗ about how we can have formalize this as

56:12 ↗ well but we're we're trying to do it

56:13 ↗ where we can um you know uh purchasing

56:17 ↗ reviewing electric vehicles and hybrid

56:19 ↗ vehicles before other vehicles right so

56:22 ↗ there are those

56:25 ↗ somewhat simpler um choices that can be

56:29 ↗ made and and generally I would say for

56:31 ↗ this policy it's thinking about more

56:34 ↗ complex projects themselves. So, new

56:37 ↗ buildings as a whole or full

56:40 ↗ infrastructure projects like a a park,

56:43 ↗ you know, a re- retrofit project or a

56:46 ↗ new uh street, you know, project or

56:48 ↗ something like that.

56:50 ↗ >> Okay.

56:50 ↗ >> Does that help answer the question?

56:51 ↗ >> Yeah.

56:52 ↗ >> Thank you.

56:55 ↗ >> Yeah. John, it seems like this policy

56:58 ↗ when I sit here, it seems like it's

57:00 ↗ geared primarily for structures and

57:02 ↗ buildings. Mhm.

57:03 ↗ >> Um will the policy also cover property

57:06 ↗ and grounds for example like canopy and

57:10 ↗ wetlands and permeability of surfaces

57:13 ↗ things like that like um uh not just

57:18 ↗ creation of greenhouse gases but but um

57:23 ↗ preserving canopy for example or or like

57:28 ↗ permeability like I've heard people

57:30 ↗ talking about putting aster fields,

57:33 ↗ things like that. Are we

57:35 ↗ >> is that part of the policy too?

57:37 ↗ >> It is. And I'll we'll be getting to the

57:40 ↗ infrastructure side in a minute. But I

57:42 ↗ will say for the facilities when we

57:44 ↗ think about lead sustainability

57:46 ↗ principles that would be going into it.

57:48 ↗ Um there are sections of lead that are

57:50 ↗ specifically focused on the building

57:52 ↗ energy use for instance. But there are

57:54 ↗ also sections around um the building

57:57 ↗ envelope, the building grounds, where

57:59 ↗ you're placing buildings, um permeable

58:02 ↗ surface, things like that. And so

58:04 ↗ >> it's covered in the pulse. it it's

58:06 ↗ covered in kind of how lead works

58:08 ↗ generally is it it kind of looks

58:10 ↗ holistically around the whole

58:11 ↗ construction project. Um and then as

58:14 ↗ you'll see in a little bit the

58:15 ↗ infrastructure projects um we'll be

58:18 ↗ using a uh a tool called Envision and

58:20 ↗ that specifically D might have been

58:22 ↗ trained in that um but that specifically

58:25 ↗ looks at uh principles that you're

58:28 ↗ talking about as it relates to the

58:30 ↗ non-building type projects

58:33 ↗ >> and city facilities and infrastructure

58:35 ↗ do need to comply with city code as

58:38 ↗ well. So, some of those items you were

58:40 ↗ mentioning would probably be covered in

58:42 ↗ city code, but this would help fill the

58:44 ↗ gap or take it beyond city.

58:47 ↗ >> Okay.

58:52 ↗ >> So, the next change is very specific to

58:55 ↗ facilities for the most part. Um, and

58:57 ↗ this change is m modeled after the

58:59 ↗ Pierce County Electric First Policy. Um,

59:02 ↗ it's a actually a small part of the

59:04 ↗ policy, but really what it is saying is

59:07 ↗ that if we're ever replacing fossil fuel

59:10 ↗ equipment in our facilities, we have to

59:12 ↗ at least

59:14 ↗ assess the feasibility of

59:16 ↗ electrification of that equipment. So,

59:18 ↗ what that is really saying is taking the

59:19 ↗ fuel transition assessment, going a

59:21 ↗ little bit deeper than that, and saying,

59:23 ↗ "Hey, we're going to be replacing a uh a

59:26 ↗ pool water heater or we're going to be

59:27 ↗ replacing a HVAC system in uh a

59:31 ↗ building." Before we make any decisions

59:34 ↗ around whether or not we're going to

59:36 ↗ replace it with natural gas, we must

59:39 ↗ look at whether or not what it would

59:42 ↗ look like to electrify. So, this is

59:44 ↗ modeled after that policy and is really

59:46 ↗ just put in place to um provide a little

59:49 ↗ bit of a kick to um require looking at

59:53 ↗ electric feasibility before replacing

59:55 ↗ fossil fuel equipment with more fossil

59:56 ↗ fuel equipment.

1:00:00 ↗ Here's where we get to the

1:00:01 ↗ infrastructure type projects. Um and so

1:00:04 ↗ our previous policy didn't have as much

1:00:07 ↗ information around uh infrastructure

1:00:09 ↗ projects. It was a big uh gap. And so

1:00:13 ↗ this is an area where kind of that you

1:00:15 ↗ can see the phased in approach, right?

1:00:16 ↗ So um we've set as part of the proposed

1:00:20 ↗ changes envision as the standard for

1:00:22 ↗ sustainable infrastructure projects. We

1:00:25 ↗ looked at a couple of different of these

1:00:27 ↗ evaluation tools and a envision is one

1:00:30 ↗ that is like lead. It's a certification

1:00:33 ↗ that you can get that covers um

1:00:35 ↗ sustainability principles for

1:00:37 ↗ infrastructure projects. Um and it's

1:00:39 ↗ used nationally. King County has its own

1:00:42 ↗ homegrown uh inf sustainable

1:00:45 ↗ infrastructure scorecard. Um but we felt

1:00:48 ↗ like the Envision uh standard provided a

1:00:51 ↗ little bit more um it was a little bit

1:00:53 ↗ easier for us to use. Um it had this

1:00:56 ↗ national support whereas the King County

1:00:58 ↗ uh uh u scorecard has specific staff

1:01:03 ↗ members dedicated to it at King County

1:01:05 ↗ and and so therefore it doesn't quite

1:01:07 ↗ have the support that um this national

1:01:09 ↗ standard has. So, we've incorporated

1:01:12 ↗ references to Envision as that standard

1:01:14 ↗ for sustainable infrastructure projects

1:01:16 ↗ and we've required as part of this

1:01:18 ↗ policy a pilot project using Envision um

1:01:21 ↗ by the end of 2027.

1:01:24 ↗ So that would require working with our

1:01:25 ↗ parks team or with our public works team

1:01:28 ↗ for the most part to identify which

1:01:30 ↗ project we can really test this um this

1:01:34 ↗ standard on this certification on see

1:01:37 ↗ how it works. Work closely with those um

1:01:40 ↗ staff to try and figure out how can this

1:01:43 ↗ how will this apply for that project and

1:01:45 ↗ how are we going to try and apply it for

1:01:47 ↗ other projects. Additionally, I'm going

1:01:49 ↗ to mention this is another area where

1:01:50 ↗ staff training comes into play. Um, as I

1:01:52 ↗ mentioned, I know many folks at

1:01:54 ↗ Belleview were trained on the Envision

1:01:56 ↗ uh toolkit and the standard. Um, and so

1:01:58 ↗ staff training on Envision and other

1:02:00 ↗ sustainable infrastructure best

1:02:02 ↗ practices are going to be really key

1:02:03 ↗ here as we think about making sure that

1:02:06 ↗ our public works team, our parks team,

1:02:08 ↗ uh, and other staff across the city

1:02:10 ↗ understand how these certifications work

1:02:12 ↗ and understand how to incorporate these

1:02:14 ↗ sustainable infrastructure best

1:02:16 ↗ practices into their work.

1:02:19 ↗ >> What is it, Vision? Is it a software

1:02:21 ↗ tool or

1:02:22 ↗ >> no? So, are you familiar with lead or

1:02:25 ↗ buildings?

1:02:25 ↗ >> No.

1:02:26 ↗ >> Um, so lead looking at the building and

1:02:29 ↗ how you build the building. Um, using

1:02:31 ↗ sustainable products, using sustainable

1:02:33 ↗ energy like you were talking about, how

1:02:35 ↗ you sight it um how you

1:02:39 ↗ know impervious versus purious surfaces,

1:02:42 ↗ how you site those, keeping trees and

1:02:44 ↗ stuff. Invision kind of takes one step

1:02:46 ↗ further out on that and looks at how you

1:02:49 ↗ actually manage the entire project from

1:02:51 ↗ start to finish. So,

1:02:52 ↗ >> okay. So, it's like a pol set policies

1:02:54 ↗ or

1:02:55 ↗ >> No, it's just kind of like looking from

1:02:56 ↗ all the all the way from when you're

1:02:59 ↗ even thinking about what property you

1:03:00 ↗ purchase, you know, are you going to

1:03:02 ↗ purchase a brownlands versus a native

1:03:05 ↗ area to build your building on?

1:03:07 ↗ >> Okay. Um or if you have a property that

1:03:09 ↗ has some native area on it that's that's

1:03:11 ↗ nice. How do you work your facility in

1:03:14 ↗ so you avoid impacts to that? It's it

1:03:17 ↗ takes one step back and it's not as

1:03:19 ↗ technical as the lead process. It's not

1:03:22 ↗ the lead process is done by the

1:03:24 ↗ architect firms typically where the

1:03:26 ↗ envision processes can be done by we had

1:03:30 ↗ 50 60 staff members that went through

1:03:32 ↗ it. Everybody speaks the same language

1:03:34 ↗ when we hear about projects on it. Okay.

1:03:37 ↗ >> And uh as you guys said, it's a great

1:03:39 ↗ training tool and then you know you can

1:03:42 ↗ you can kind of direct everybody across

1:03:45 ↗ the city to to think this route when

1:03:47 ↗ you're building anything.

1:03:48 ↗ >> Okay. So it's a it's a process.

1:03:51 ↗ >> Yeah.

1:03:52 ↗ >> And the way lead and envision work is

1:03:55 ↗ you can certify a project through lead

1:03:58 ↗ or envision.

1:03:59 ↗ >> And the way that'll work, right, is

1:04:00 ↗ you'll get a you know the simple way to

1:04:03 ↗ explain it will be like there's

1:04:04 ↗ sections, right? So um that you can get

1:04:07 ↗ points in and you you know if you get a

1:04:09 ↗ certain amount of points you're

1:04:10 ↗ certified envision project or you're a

1:04:12 ↗ certified lead project. Um and the way

1:04:15 ↗ you get those points is by incorporating

1:04:18 ↗ different types of sustainability

1:04:20 ↗ principles into that project. Again

1:04:22 ↗ looking at water use permeable surface

1:04:25 ↗ what property you're buying and how

1:04:28 ↗ you're putting multimmodal transit

1:04:30 ↗ around it. You know all all of these

1:04:32 ↗ pieces kind of come together. And so

1:04:35 ↗ importantly cons compared to the fuel

1:04:37 ↗ transition assessment both envision and

1:04:40 ↗ lead are much more holistic beyond just

1:04:43 ↗ energy use uh greenhouse gas emissions

1:04:46 ↗ but thinking about um our natural

1:04:49 ↗ systems. How are our projects could um

1:04:52 ↗ creating as minimal impact or positive

1:04:54 ↗ impacts as possible on our natural

1:04:56 ↗ systems? um how it's helping the broader

1:05:00 ↗ community um and the health and

1:05:02 ↗ well-being of our community, things like

1:05:04 ↗ that. So, there's a lot of pieces that

1:05:06 ↗ go into these um certification tools and

1:05:09 ↗ their um their tools and processes to

1:05:13 ↗ help guide staff thinking as as

1:05:15 ↗ >> in their use nationwide.

1:05:17 ↗ >> Both their use nationwide

1:05:18 ↗ >> a national database for both lead and

1:05:20 ↗ envision where you put projects in and

1:05:22 ↗ you know get celebrated on this

1:05:25 ↗ database.

1:05:26 ↗ You'll often see it a lot of times

1:05:27 ↗ you're walking around on new buildings.

1:05:29 ↗ You'll see a little lead certification

1:05:30 ↗ plaque out on the front process.

1:05:34 ↗ >> It is fun. You can kind of keep an eye

1:05:36 ↗ >> so I can Google this and learn more.

1:05:37 ↗ >> Yes. Yes. LEAD is the biggest one

1:05:41 ↗ probably especially for buildings. There

1:05:43 ↗ are other certification systems for

1:05:45 ↗ buildings and especially for different

1:05:46 ↗ types of buildings like built green for

1:05:49 ↗ residential facilities, things like

1:05:51 ↗ that. Um there are many fewer of these

1:05:54 ↗ certification systems for infrastructure

1:05:56 ↗ projects and that was kind of part of

1:05:58 ↗ the challenge is that um

1:06:02 ↗ it it is a newer field versus you know

1:06:05 ↗ the the facilities certification

1:06:08 ↗ projects which have been around for for

1:06:10 ↗ a very long time.

1:06:11 ↗ >> I'll send out some links for both leaden

1:06:14 ↗ and vision folks.

1:06:19 ↗ Um the final policy changes here are uh

1:06:24 ↗ related to waste diversion pro

1:06:26 ↗ practices. So um we felt like while

1:06:29 ↗ we're updating this policy, we might as

1:06:32 ↗ well and we definitely want to increase

1:06:34 ↗ our um ability to uh manage our waste um

1:06:39 ↗ in as as responsible a manner as we can.

1:06:42 ↗ So these were policy changes suggested

1:06:44 ↗ by and and advocated for by uh Sam

1:06:47 ↗ Tarbin, our solid waste analyst. And

1:06:49 ↗ these are really set around um setting

1:06:52 ↗ diversion goals for construction and

1:06:54 ↗ demolition projects um across that the

1:06:57 ↗ city does establishing waste audit

1:06:59 ↗ timelines for all city facilities. So

1:07:02 ↗ looking at what waste is being produced

1:07:04 ↗ at those facilities and how can we uh uh

1:07:08 ↗ improve diversion rates at those

1:07:10 ↗ facilities where possible and then

1:07:12 ↗ mandating waste reduction and source

1:07:14 ↗ separation of solid waste in city

1:07:16 ↗ facilities. So again that's looking at

1:07:18 ↗ um reducing the overall waste that we're

1:07:20 ↗ producing in city facilities and also

1:07:22 ↗ separating it out into recycling compost

1:07:25 ↗ and um garbage as well. So those have

1:07:28 ↗ also been worked in and we're trying to

1:07:30 ↗ build uh throughout this whole update

1:07:32 ↗ process a little bit more of a holistic

1:07:34 ↗ policy that addresses waste

1:07:36 ↗ infrastructure, city facilities, um

1:07:39 ↗ equipment change outs, etc. So um kind

1:07:42 ↗ of working it all into one cohesive

1:07:44 ↗ policy.

1:07:45 ↗ >> Your waste diversion practices would

1:07:47 ↗ apply to existing maintenance practices

1:07:49 ↗ as well as when you redevelop.

1:07:51 ↗ >> Correct.

1:07:52 ↗ >> Yes.

1:07:54 ↗ Exactly. So this this would go into play

1:07:56 ↗ for all city facilities right away. Most

1:07:59 ↗ of the facilities policies are um

1:08:03 ↗ related to when we're doing major

1:08:05 ↗ changes to facilities or making new

1:08:07 ↗ building new facilities. Not all of them

1:08:10 ↗ but most of them. Um but this would

1:08:11 ↗ again be all facilities right away.

1:08:17 ↗ So the conclusion I have here these are

1:08:19 ↗ um these are changes that we're

1:08:21 ↗ proposing. I'm I'm open to feedback and

1:08:24 ↗ excited to kind of hear what the

1:08:25 ↗ environmental board um thinks about

1:08:27 ↗ this. One note I do want to mention and

1:08:30 ↗ and to John's point because this is

1:08:32 ↗ looking beyond just uh energy use and

1:08:35 ↗ greenhouse gas emissions, thinking about

1:08:37 ↗ evaluating a policy like this is quite

1:08:40 ↗ difficult because what we're looking at

1:08:42 ↗ is how are we incorporating sust

1:08:44 ↗ sustainability principles holistically

1:08:46 ↗ into projects, right? That impact um our

1:08:50 ↗ natural system, our community

1:08:52 ↗ well-being, our energy use, water use,

1:08:54 ↗ all of these different pieces. and

1:08:57 ↗ thinking about it um for very varied

1:09:00 ↗ projects. Everything from a dog park

1:09:03 ↗ type uh park project up to a new city

1:09:06 ↗ building, right? And so um I do want to

1:09:10 ↗ just note that that the evaluation of

1:09:12 ↗ this policy is built into the policy

1:09:14 ↗ itself, but it is just a kind of a

1:09:17 ↗ difficult task to tackle and uh one that

1:09:20 ↗ we're really excited to be doing as we

1:09:22 ↗ move forward. So, I have a couple

1:09:26 ↗ questions for discussion. Um, first, I'm

1:09:28 ↗ happy to take any general questions

1:09:30 ↗ about the proposed updates and changes.

1:09:33 ↗ Um, second, do you have any does the

1:09:35 ↗ environmental board have any feedback on

1:09:37 ↗ the proposed changes? And then finally,

1:09:39 ↗ are there anything uh additional changes

1:09:42 ↗ that are not included in the policy that

1:09:44 ↗ you'd like to see us explore?

1:09:52 ↗ Uh well so in the last section there you

1:09:54 ↗ talk about waste diversion but you

1:09:56 ↗ didn't enumerate what specific changes

1:09:59 ↗ you're proposing for the waste version.

1:10:02 ↗ So I I don't know I can't comment on

1:10:05 ↗ whether you're going far enough with

1:10:07 ↗ that or not.

1:10:09 ↗ >> Is that within scope to talk about now?

1:10:12 ↗ >> Yeah, let me pull it up so I get my

1:10:16 ↗ numbers right.

1:10:22 ↗ I have to find a specific connection.

1:10:24 ↗ >> Share that as we get into the

1:10:26 ↗ discussion.

1:10:29 ↗ >> Yes, I can share this.

1:10:32 ↗ You can see me scroll.

1:10:39 ↗ Sorry.

1:10:45 ↗ There we go. Okay. Got it.

1:10:47 ↗ 12.

1:11:00 ↗ So

1:11:02 ↗ this section is is just about minimizing

1:11:06 ↗ single-use plastics, disposable utensils

1:11:08 ↗ and mandating that source separation.

1:11:12 ↗ um the

1:11:16 ↗ audits um and the goal of the audits is

1:11:20 ↗ to achieve 70% waste city waste

1:11:22 ↗ diversion by 2030 and 90% by 2050. And

1:11:26 ↗ so those are the audits that would

1:11:27 ↗ happen at city facilities every 3 years

1:11:29 ↗ or on a rotating basis. So the audits

1:11:32 ↗ would happen every year but for each

1:11:34 ↗ facility every three years.

1:11:37 ↗ Um and then the aim would be a 90% waste

1:11:40 ↗ diversion rate for construction

1:11:41 ↗ involving demolition and 75% waste

1:11:44 ↗ diversion for construction not involving

1:11:46 ↗ de demolition.

1:11:48 ↗ Um and though that's an encouraged um

1:11:51 ↗ aim and so that's again kind of where a

1:11:53 ↗ phased approach would happen of this is

1:11:56 ↗ the encouraged um diversion rate and as

1:11:59 ↗ we assessing how this is being

1:12:01 ↗ implemented we can make that stronger as

1:12:05 ↗ that language stronger in uh future

1:12:07 ↗ updates. Well, I guess I'm thinking

1:12:10 ↗ about this particularly now because

1:12:13 ↗ there's a house under construction

1:12:16 ↗ and they have a nice big bin out front

1:12:19 ↗ and they're throwing amazing quantities

1:12:22 ↗ of nice lumber in there and I'm just

1:12:25 ↗ wondering well what so what happens to

1:12:27 ↗ all that in the olden days it would have

1:12:29 ↗ all gone to the landfill. What what

1:12:33 ↗ happens these days

1:12:35 ↗ like that?

1:12:37 ↗ That is a great question. Um, I might

1:12:39 ↗ need to follow up with our solid waste

1:12:41 ↗ analyst to get more details to give make

1:12:44 ↗ sure I'm giving the the best answer

1:12:46 ↗ there

1:12:46 ↗ >> because it it has, for example, it looks

1:12:49 ↗ like they're just mixing everything into

1:12:51 ↗ this bin. They ought to be separating

1:12:53 ↗ out dimensional lumber, which is nice

1:12:56 ↗ clean lumber versus garbage versus well

1:13:01 ↗ engineered lumber, you know, plywood and

1:13:03 ↗ things like that that have chemicals in

1:13:05 ↗ it. that's in a different category than

1:13:08 ↗ convention features of oil and uh should

1:13:12 ↗ be uh should not go directly into a

1:13:15 ↗ landing

1:13:17 ↗ the uses for that it should be remote

1:13:21 ↗ and made into other things. So I'm I'm

1:13:24 ↗ wondering what happens these days to a

1:13:27 ↗ bid like that.

1:13:28 ↗ >> I can find out more details. The what's

1:13:30 ↗ currently in the policy is they aim for

1:13:33 ↗ essentially 90% that material would go

1:13:36 ↗ towards reuse instead of the landfall.

1:13:39 ↗ So

1:13:39 ↗ >> for city projects, sorry for city

1:13:42 ↗ projects. Yes.

1:13:43 ↗ >> Our city code does have some

1:13:44 ↗ requirements. We'll look that up and

1:13:46 ↗ send it. And then um that is proposed

1:13:49 ↗ for in the new IAP as we get into the

1:13:52 ↗ lease and materials review of those new

1:13:56 ↗ actions. Um there will be a proposal to

1:13:59 ↗ update that code and make it stronger.

1:14:06 ↗ >> Okay. Thank you.

1:14:08 ↗ just an idea uh along the lines. Uh the

1:14:12 ↗ city could could do something to foster

1:14:14 ↗ reuse and repurposing of city uh

1:14:18 ↗ equipment that's no longer used. At

1:14:20 ↗ Boeing, they used to have a place where

1:14:23 ↗ they would take all the old desks and

1:14:25 ↗ all the old computers and then they

1:14:28 ↗ would open this store up like once a

1:14:30 ↗ week on Saturday for sale to the public.

1:14:34 ↗ >> The city could do something similar like

1:14:35 ↗ that. Does the city use a public surplus

1:14:38 ↗ process?

1:14:39 ↗ >> Oh, that's a good question. I know the

1:14:41 ↗ school district does something like

1:14:42 ↗ that. I don't

1:14:43 ↗ >> I think the municipal what I'm aware

1:14:46 ↗ municipalities and government agencies

1:14:48 ↗ are required to surplus their their

1:14:51 ↗ excess stuff. There's lots of government

1:14:54 ↗ surplus websites out there.

1:14:57 ↗ >> Um, but they're required to try to

1:14:58 ↗ recoup any available money they can

1:15:01 ↗ before they dispose it.

1:15:03 ↗ >> So, it's already done.

1:15:05 ↗ I know everybody does a little

1:15:07 ↗ different. So,

1:15:08 ↗ >> we definitely do follow some public

1:15:10 ↗ surplus. I'm I'm most familiar with it

1:15:12 ↗ with our fleet. So, you know, for

1:15:14 ↗ getting rid of a car, we have to kind of

1:15:16 ↗ go through these policies. we can't

1:15:19 ↗ just, you know, throw it out or

1:15:21 ↗ anything, but um I know we have had

1:15:25 ↗ events at Pickering Barn specifically

1:15:28 ↗ for kind of um

1:15:31 ↗ uh

1:15:32 ↗ uh material, you know, kind of furniture

1:15:37 ↗ on the word, but furniture

1:15:40 ↗ um recycling events and things like

1:15:42 ↗ that. I think not sure if city materials

1:15:45 ↗ would have gone into that necessarily,

1:15:47 ↗ but um there are a couple specific

1:15:51 ↗ actions in our ICAP that we're

1:15:53 ↗ considering and some of our other plans

1:15:55 ↗ to to specifically look at kind of

1:15:57 ↗ opportunities for reusing recycling city

1:16:01 ↗ equipment and materials in our

1:16:03 ↗ facilities.

1:16:07 ↗ >> Um one suggestion for you on the phase

1:16:09 ↗ approach from 25 to 2030. Um it doesn't

1:16:12 ↗ really say what happens after the phase

1:16:14 ↗ approach. So put a little more teeth to

1:16:16 ↗ that of 2028. We're going to go through

1:16:19 ↗ a in-depth evaluation and make a

1:16:21 ↗ decision by 2030 on final steps.

1:16:26 ↗ >> You put a timeline to it. But

1:16:28 ↗ >> what kind of

1:16:29 ↗ >> it's just kind of open. It's just kind

1:16:30 ↗ of okay. Now what?

1:16:33 ↗ >> Okay.

1:16:35 ↗ >> Yes, I think we can do that.

1:16:38 ↗ >> Overall, I like it. Looks good. Other

1:16:43 ↗ questions?

1:16:46 ↗ >> Actually, I have one.

1:16:47 ↗ >> Yeah, I'll give this one. So, um, so you

1:16:50 ↗ mentioned one of the policy changes is

1:16:52 ↗ to change it from or at least to

1:16:54 ↗ eliminate the language that talks about

1:16:55 ↗ communityf facing events and you

1:16:57 ↗ mentioned um and I think in in another

1:17:00 ↗ part of the language it changes it from

1:17:03 ↗ you know all private public or municipal

1:17:06 ↗ buildings to those that are just owned

1:17:08 ↗ and financed by the city. So you

1:17:10 ↗ mentioned that was part of sort of like

1:17:11 ↗ the city wanting to lead by example. Um

1:17:14 ↗ were there other challenges and was it

1:17:17 ↗ too ambitious of a goal to sort of you

1:17:20 ↗ know uh what were the what were the

1:17:22 ↗ challenges of this community this

1:17:24 ↗ initial community facing approach and

1:17:27 ↗ could you speak a little bit about why

1:17:29 ↗ the change?

1:17:30 ↗ >> Yeah from from kind of community city to

1:17:32 ↗ to city for this policy. So I think a

1:17:37 ↗ lot of the impetus for that was to think

1:17:41 ↗ about where we can um implement those

1:17:46 ↗ sustainability

1:17:47 ↗ guidance or regulations uh the best in

1:17:50 ↗ in city um processes. And so I think

1:17:55 ↗ with the update of our title 18 um we

1:17:58 ↗ incorporated sustainability

1:18:00 ↗ uh principles into that. Um and then

1:18:03 ↗ within our actually quite a few

1:18:05 ↗ different um city code areas. So title

1:18:09 ↗ 18 is our land use code. 16 is our

1:18:12 ↗ building code. Then we have and I mess

1:18:16 ↗ up the numbers, but 12 or 13 there's

1:18:19 ↗ information on storm water and some of

1:18:22 ↗ these other pieces. And so rather than

1:18:24 ↗ having these community regulations

1:18:26 ↗ around sustainability

1:18:28 ↗ both in our in our code but then also in

1:18:31 ↗ this policy the idea is to just

1:18:33 ↗ incorporate it as much as we can into

1:18:35 ↗ the code itself. Um so that's then the

1:18:38 ↗ guidance and the requirements for folks

1:18:40 ↗ and instead take this policy for city

1:18:44 ↗ operations to think about what can the

1:18:45 ↗ city do to go above and beyond what's

1:18:48 ↗ already existing in those codes. So, um

1:18:54 ↗ it's very possible that we come back to

1:18:56 ↗ the environmental board in the future to

1:18:58 ↗ talk about updates to um our city code

1:19:02 ↗ to incorporate more sustainability

1:19:04 ↗ language into um those pieces of the of

1:19:08 ↗ the um municipal code that would be then

1:19:11 ↗ more applicable to the community beyond

1:19:14 ↗ again what's already in there right now.

1:19:18 ↗ No, that's actually on my updates for

1:19:20 ↗ later um is we will be reviewing. So

1:19:24 ↗ when um title 18 or land use code was

1:19:27 ↗ passed, the environmental board weighed

1:19:29 ↗ in on the sustainable building

1:19:31 ↗ requirements there. We went with a lead

1:19:34 ↗ platum certification for buildings of a

1:19:37 ↗ certain size and above. We always knew

1:19:40 ↗ we would revisit that. Um, so that is on

1:19:43 ↗ the list for 2026 to revisit what are

1:19:46 ↗ going to be the communitywide

1:19:48 ↗ requirements, sustainable building

1:19:50 ↗ requirements.

1:19:51 ↗ Um, so yeah, as David was saying, we

1:19:54 ↗ really want communitywide requirements

1:19:56 ↗ documented in code. Um, this document is

1:19:59 ↗ really meant to be internal policy, a

1:20:02 ↗ lot of guidelines, some requirement, but

1:20:05 ↗ it'll be a little bit more flexible

1:20:07 ↗ versus what's in code and required. any

1:20:11 ↗ >> and I will say that the city is required

1:20:13 ↗ to meet the code as well. So, uh even if

1:20:16 ↗ this policy allows a little bit of

1:20:18 ↗ flexibility, anything that's in code,

1:20:20 ↗ the city has to do also.

1:20:23 ↗ >> Thanks.

1:20:27 ↗ >> Thank you all very much for listening to

1:20:29 ↗ me

1:20:30 ↗ >> blabber on for the last hour and a half.

1:20:34 ↗ Please do look at I think it's

1:20:36 ↗ attachment C is the track changes

1:20:38 ↗ version of um you had kindly pulled out

1:20:42 ↗ the material from the the larger

1:20:44 ↗ document into a more readable format.

1:20:48 ↗ Um, but that's where we seek any

1:20:50 ↗ additional input, revisions, reach out,

1:20:54 ↗ schedule one time if you want more time

1:20:56 ↗ to talk about it and we'll offer that up

1:20:58 ↗ to the board members that aren't here so

1:21:00 ↗ we can come back for discussion and

1:21:02 ↗ discussion.

1:21:04 ↗ >> Okay,

1:21:09 ↗ >> Stacy.

1:21:10 ↗ >> All right, we will give David a break.

1:21:13 ↗ Um, so I will we're about 7:55. Um,

1:21:18 ↗ we'll keep this fairly brief. Um, we got

1:21:21 ↗ to provide an update on the climate

1:21:23 ↗ action plan update. Um, provide a P

1:21:26 ↗ report out at the end of the meeting.

1:21:28 ↗ Um,

1:21:30 ↗ uh, we shared a bit about this at the

1:21:31 ↗ last couple of meetings, but did want to

1:21:33 ↗ provide the board just a progress report

1:21:35 ↗ on where we are with updating the plan.

1:21:38 ↗ Um, and I'll pull up a couple documents

1:21:40 ↗ in a few moments. Um so as you all are

1:21:44 ↗ aware many of you participated um we

1:21:46 ↗ formed two committees last spring that

1:21:49 ↗ were focused around two of our focus

1:21:51 ↗ areas in the plan. One committee on

1:21:54 ↗ natural systems and water resources, the

1:21:56 ↗ other on transportation and land use.

1:21:59 ↗ Those committees met together and then

1:22:02 ↗ separately um to really dive in deep

1:22:05 ↗ into the actions in those focus areas.

1:22:08 ↗ Um just as a reminder to the the reason

1:22:11 ↗ we formed those two committees was our

1:22:13 ↗ natural system section need a lot of

1:22:15 ↗ updates because the current actions in

1:22:18 ↗ the IAP do not relate to the target for

1:22:20 ↗ that focus area which is around tree

1:22:23 ↗ canopy land use and transportation. A

1:22:26 ↗ lot of those actions in the current

1:22:29 ↗ climate plan were focused on the title

1:22:31 ↗ 18 update. Many of them were addressed

1:22:33 ↗ in that land use code update. Um and

1:22:36 ↗ then we've also updated our mobility

1:22:39 ↗ action plan um since the IAAP was

1:22:41 ↗ written. So we wanted to revisit the

1:22:43 ↗ transportation actions.

1:22:46 ↗ Um

1:22:48 ↗ so those committees have met provided

1:22:50 ↗ recommendations over the summer. We

1:22:53 ↗ worked with the consultant and then

1:22:55 ↗ staff have been evaluating those

1:22:56 ↗ recommendations

1:22:58 ↗ to put forward either a revised action,

1:23:02 ↗ a new action or recommendation to an

1:23:05 ↗ action from a plan.

1:23:08 ↗ Um, we are planning to bring that input

1:23:12 ↗ to multiple boards and commissions this

1:23:15 ↗ fall as well as the environmental board

1:23:18 ↗ to get feedback on those proposed

1:23:21 ↗ revisions.

1:23:22 ↗ um and eventually work through the

1:23:24 ↗ environmental board to group those those

1:23:26 ↗ actions um into the new climate plan

1:23:32 ↗ as well. this summer. Um David and I

1:23:34 ↗ have been going through the plan and

1:23:36 ↗ looking at the actions in the other

1:23:38 ↗ focus areas. So, buildings and energy,

1:23:41 ↗ the overarching materials um and

1:23:44 ↗ resources.

1:23:45 ↗ And we have been um working on revisions

1:23:49 ↗ with staff uh subject matter experts, um

1:23:52 ↗ our own thoughts based on what we've

1:23:54 ↗ learned over the last few years. uh

1:23:57 ↗ looking at our neighboring jurisdictions

1:23:59 ↗ who are updating their climate plans to

1:24:01 ↗ see if they have great ideas for new

1:24:04 ↗ policies to propose. Um and we will be

1:24:07 ↗ packaging those recommendations up to

1:24:10 ↗ bring to you all um over the coming

1:24:12 ↗ months. Um, we'll also be meeting with

1:24:15 ↗ our emergency manager, um, he's back, I

1:24:18 ↗ believe, in November to work on the

1:24:20 ↗ community, um, resilience and well-being

1:24:23 ↗ section and and provide new

1:24:25 ↗ recommendations for that section.

1:24:28 ↗ Um, earlier this week, David and I also

1:24:31 ↗ met with staff from the Snomme tribe to

1:24:34 ↗ start our review of the natural systems

1:24:37 ↗ actions. um she was only able to attend

1:24:39 ↗ one of the committee meetings. So we

1:24:42 ↗ were going through recommendations

1:24:43 ↗ coming out of the committee as well as

1:24:45 ↗ our staff review to get her input and

1:24:47 ↗ we'll continue that conversation with

1:24:49 ↗ the tribe to look at additional

1:24:54 ↗ um so that is kind of where we are. Uh

1:24:58 ↗ things are going to get very busy soon

1:25:00 ↗ as we start to take draft

1:25:02 ↗ recommendations to transportation board.

1:25:06 ↗ Um it'll be a combined meeting with

1:25:08 ↗ equity board, uh park board, and PPC.

1:25:12 ↗ Um and in the meantime, we'll be

1:25:14 ↗ starting to have conversations with you

1:25:16 ↗ all about, uh some of the more

1:25:18 ↗ overarching questions like how long

1:25:21 ↗ should this plan be? How often should we

1:25:23 ↗ be doing our greenhouse gas inventory?

1:25:26 ↗ Um and there's a few other kind of

1:25:28 ↗ overarching questions that we'll start

1:25:29 ↗ to have.

1:25:32 ↗ Um so that is a quick very quick

1:25:35 ↗ overview. I will show you um

1:25:41 ↗ uh just what we put in the memo. This is

1:25:44 ↗ a very tenative plan of what we're

1:25:48 ↗ thinking is um talking with you in

1:25:51 ↗ October, starting that conversation

1:25:53 ↗ about some of the overarching updates

1:25:56 ↗ we're looking at making, talking about

1:25:58 ↗ how long we want this plan to be

1:26:00 ↗ greenhouse gas inventory.

1:26:02 ↗ Um and then October, December, we'd be

1:26:06 ↗ starting to bring um specific actions to

1:26:09 ↗ you. Uh probably grouped by focus area.

1:26:12 ↗ So, buildings and energy or natural

1:26:14 ↗ systems and water resources. Um we will

1:26:19 ↗ bring you the

1:26:22 ↗ actions after they've been reviewed with

1:26:24 ↗ the other board or commission that is

1:26:27 ↗ the subject matter expert around that

1:26:29 ↗ particular topic.

1:26:31 ↗ Um

1:26:33 ↗ the one thing I neglected to mention

1:26:35 ↗ that's also coming up is we will be

1:26:37 ↗ forming a third committee um metrics

1:26:40 ↗ committee which I know PJ has

1:26:41 ↗ volunteered to. We're going to reach out

1:26:43 ↗ to Jamie originally expressed interest

1:26:46 ↗ um and we welcome any other members of

1:26:48 ↗ the board. That group will be starting

1:26:51 ↗ to meet this winter once we've started

1:26:54 ↗ to shape our actions a little bit more

1:26:57 ↗ and identify really what are the best

1:26:59 ↗ measures for those actions to make sure

1:27:01 ↗ we can um continue to report out in a

1:27:05 ↗ very transparent way on our dashboard.

1:27:08 ↗ So that group will meet kind of winter

1:27:09 ↗ into early spring sort of in parallel as

1:27:12 ↗ we're finalizing actions.

1:27:15 ↗ Um we're thinking probably November we

1:27:19 ↗ we should be ready to bring you all

1:27:21 ↗ natural systems actions um some of the

1:27:24 ↗ overarching actions which really are

1:27:27 ↗ municipal work and maybe even some of

1:27:28 ↗ the buildings and energy action that

1:27:31 ↗ might be very ambitious for that

1:27:32 ↗ meeting. Um December uh we should be

1:27:35 ↗ ready to bring you community resilience

1:27:37 ↗ and well-being. Um, and then January

1:27:41 ↗ through April, we'll probably bringing

1:27:42 ↗ you um the focus area actions again,

1:27:45 ↗ starting to talk metrics, um, and really

1:27:48 ↗ starting to get more of a complete

1:27:50 ↗ review over the planes.

1:27:53 ↗ We are still aiming for council review

1:27:57 ↗ and approval by June. Um,

1:28:00 ↗ reminder that is to get ahead of our

1:28:03 ↗ budget season, which staff usually

1:28:06 ↗ propose budget requests in July. Um if

1:28:10 ↗ we need to extend this deadline because

1:28:12 ↗ environmental board has more feedback on

1:28:13 ↗ the plan or we just need more of a

1:28:15 ↗ process that's definitely doable. Um but

1:28:18 ↗ our hope was to get the plan approved

1:28:21 ↗ for the budget and optional.

1:28:25 ↗ Any questions on schedule and very

1:28:28 ↗ tenative schedule and then what I did

1:28:30 ↗ want to show is just how we're planning

1:28:33 ↗ to bring your materials for review.

1:28:35 ↗ Before I do that, any questions? Um,

1:28:38 ↗ >> no, I will just remind everybody that

1:28:40 ↗ council review or that council review at

1:28:43 ↗ April June ahead of the budget. That was

1:28:45 ↗ one of our earlier comments from long

1:28:47 ↗ ago this first came to us was to please

1:28:51 ↗ align that with the budget so you can

1:28:52 ↗ get this ahead in case you need.

1:28:56 ↗ So, just one question and just remind me

1:28:59 ↗ I don't remember. So this is so if it

1:29:01 ↗ gets approved in June, this is a

1:29:04 ↗ five-year plan, right?

1:29:06 ↗ >> That's what we'll talk about next

1:29:07 ↗ meeting. Um yeah, I think there's

1:29:10 ↗ options. We had some great feedback from

1:29:12 ↗ the snow call me tribe um this week that

1:29:15 ↗ kind of reshape my thinking around

1:29:17 ↗ timeline, but that's a recommendation

1:29:19 ↗ the board can make. So we are shaping

1:29:23 ↗ the actions so they they could really

1:29:26 ↗ exist in a fiveyear plan, a 10-year

1:29:28 ↗ plan. they're still relevant.

1:29:32 ↗ >> That'll be a lens. Yeah, great question

1:29:34 ↗ and look forward to that.

1:29:36 ↗ >> And the current plan is a five.

1:29:38 ↗ >> Yeah,

1:29:39 ↗ >> that's the update.

1:29:41 ↗ >> Yeah, our our light refresh update.

1:29:45 ↗ Um,

1:29:47 ↗ great. Um, so what I wanted to just

1:29:50 ↗ share and these were in the packet.

1:29:52 ↗ These were not for review, not for

1:29:55 ↗ discussion, just a example. Um we are

1:30:00 ↗ planning to bring you all

1:30:02 ↗ uh the items for review in a format

1:30:05 ↗ following the very extensive

1:30:08 ↗ comprehensive plan review. We felt like

1:30:11 ↗ that format and opportunity for the

1:30:13 ↗ board to review items um seem to work.

1:30:18 ↗ Um so this is an example of kind of

1:30:21 ↗ overarching comments

1:30:24 ↗ um and where we'd eventually move all

1:30:26 ↗ the recommendations for action revisions

1:30:28 ↗ would be into a document like this. Um

1:30:31 ↗ we kind of show it by section of the

1:30:33 ↗ plan. We'd show what the proposed change

1:30:36 ↗ is

1:30:38 ↗ whether or not that proposed change was

1:30:40 ↗ addressed and why.

1:30:43 ↗ Um

1:30:45 ↗ and then what we are looking what we're

1:30:48 ↗ working on for the committee review is

1:30:50 ↗ somewhat similar although it'll be a

1:30:52 ↗ little bit different because we want you

1:30:53 ↗ to understand the input from the

1:30:56 ↗ committees is we have um the current

1:30:59 ↗ action in the plan feedback uh any

1:31:03 ↗ proposed revisions to that action based

1:31:06 ↗ on committee input. We will show you a

1:31:10 ↗ little bit of what that committee

1:31:11 ↗ discussed that led to the proposed

1:31:13 ↗ action. Um what our recommendation is

1:31:18 ↗ and why whether we're simplifying what

1:31:21 ↗ the committee suggests, suggesting we

1:31:23 ↗ move forward with it, suggesting a

1:31:26 ↗ different approach, we provide you that

1:31:28 ↗ detail. Um so there will be these two

1:31:31 ↗ documents. uh one is kind of all the

1:31:34 ↗ actions um addressed by the the two

1:31:37 ↗ committees. Um once those actions the

1:31:41 ↗ board has reviewed them, kind of

1:31:43 ↗ provided feedback, we'd eventually move

1:31:45 ↗ those into this kind of main document

1:31:48 ↗ that'll capture all the changes going

1:31:50 ↗ into the plan. But for right now, we

1:31:52 ↗ felt like we kind of needed the two

1:31:54 ↗ document given the committee approach.

1:31:59 ↗ So that might have been hopefully not

1:32:01 ↗ too confusing but basically wanted to

1:32:03 ↗ give you a snapshot of um how we plan to

1:32:06 ↗ bring the changes to you and again it's

1:32:08 ↗ really following that model um that

1:32:10 ↗ Stephen used for the conference.

1:32:14 ↗ welcome feedback on this. If there's

1:32:16 ↗ other ways, um we can also share as

1:32:20 ↗ requested our track changes version of

1:32:22 ↗ the IAP which will become very very

1:32:25 ↗ messy very fast. Um but yeah, welcome

1:32:29 ↗ any feedback on kind of this format or

1:32:31 ↗ if there's other things you want to see

1:32:33 ↗ as we're bringing you materials.

1:32:38 ↗ >> Could you include a date he received?

1:32:41 ↗ >> Oh, yeah. Okay.

1:32:42 ↗ >> So we can kind of see it as a timeline.

1:32:44 ↗ Yep.

1:32:48 ↗ >> Any plans to replace the environmental

1:32:50 ↗ board with an EI?

1:32:53 ↗ >> No

1:32:58 ↗ will come.

1:32:59 ↗ >> Yeah.

1:33:01 ↗ >> No.

1:33:02 ↗ to that one

1:33:04 ↗ >> discussion human interaction

1:33:07 ↗ pretty critical.

1:33:11 ↗ um

1:33:12 ↗ >> for the moment.

1:33:14 ↗ >> For the moment,

1:33:18 ↗ great. Any other thoughts, feedback?

1:33:23 ↗ Yeah, as we do a first review in October

1:33:27 ↗ and then November, if there's things

1:33:30 ↗ like date that you want to see here, let

1:33:32 ↗ us know. We can build these out further.

1:33:34 ↗ Just want to make sure you're prepared

1:33:36 ↗ for what you'd be receiving over many,

1:33:39 ↗ many meetings.

1:33:43 ↗ Great. Um I think that is all

1:33:48 ↗ we're going to share.

1:33:51 ↗ >> Have one more question.

1:33:52 ↗ >> Yeah.

1:33:53 ↗ >> At one time you had something on your

1:33:55 ↗ agenda first night regarding sister

1:33:58 ↗ city.

1:33:58 ↗ >> Yes.

1:33:59 ↗ >> We'll do a quick update on that in a

1:34:00 ↗ minute. Okay. Yeah.

1:34:04 ↗ Okay.

1:34:05 ↗ >> That's it on the IAP update. Any other

1:34:07 ↗ questions on where that process is?

1:34:11 ↗ >> Sounds like we'll get to see it several

1:34:13 ↗ times.

1:34:18 ↗ >> Don't need my other quick updates. Okay.

1:34:20 ↗ Um maybe before I'm Karen, uh Mina,

1:34:25 ↗ you're still there. I think it's

1:34:26 ↗ probably very late. Um any updates from

1:34:29 ↗ you all?

1:34:31 ↗ >> No, I don't have anything.

1:34:35 ↗ >> Um excellent. Well, yeah. Next topic,

1:34:37 ↗ good seway, John. Um, wanted to provide

1:34:40 ↗ an update on conversations with our

1:34:43 ↗ sister city in Morocco. Um, if you all

1:34:46 ↗ recall back in April, I believe the

1:34:49 ↗ mayor joined us and we had a short joint

1:34:52 ↗ meeting with the sister cities

1:34:54 ↗ commission to talk about a potential

1:34:56 ↗ joint project related to climate

1:34:59 ↗ resilience um with uh our sister city

1:35:02 ↗ Chiaan.

1:35:04 ↗ Um since then, um staff have been

1:35:07 ↗ participating in international cohort

1:35:11 ↗ that partners US cities and African

1:35:14 ↗ cities to work on climate resilience

1:35:16 ↗ projects that integrate art, heritage

1:35:18 ↗ and culture. Um and we have been um

1:35:24 ↗ participating in that cohort through

1:35:26 ↗ trainings, resources. Um that group is

1:35:29 ↗ also facilitating conversations between

1:35:31 ↗ the US and African cities. We've had one

1:35:35 ↗ conversation um with Cheshawan to date

1:35:38 ↗ that included the mayor and some staff

1:35:41 ↗ just to hear what their priorities for a

1:35:43 ↗ joint project would be. Um we've heard

1:35:46 ↗ from Mayor Polly a couple times. She has

1:35:49 ↗ some priorities around uh showing

1:35:52 ↗ projects that demonstrate

1:35:55 ↗ climate action in different types of

1:35:57 ↗ environments um dry and hot and and wet.

1:36:01 ↗ Um and then uh last week we met with um

1:36:07 ↗ Don and Alex and the chairs of the

1:36:09 ↗ sister city commission and chairs of the

1:36:11 ↗ art commission to provide an update on

1:36:14 ↗ conversations to date and start to

1:36:16 ↗ brainstorm potential project ideas um or

1:36:20 ↗ goals for a project.

1:36:22 ↗ Um, I think there is a lot, what we've

1:36:25 ↗ heard to date is there's a lot of

1:36:27 ↗ interest on centering around youth. Um,

1:36:30 ↗ and probably some type of multi- media

1:36:34 ↗ art project. Um, and there were some

1:36:38 ↗ really specific ideas. Don had some

1:36:40 ↗ great ideas about um, working closely

1:36:42 ↗ with schools. We had ideas about um

1:36:45 ↗ focusing on mental health and uh really

1:36:49 ↗ building hope and empowerment amongst

1:36:51 ↗ youth in a climate change future. Um so

1:36:55 ↗ our next steps uh for the project are um

1:37:00 ↗ connecting again with our sister cities

1:37:02 ↗ just to share our conversations to date.

1:37:05 ↗ um connecting with some of our youth um

1:37:08 ↗ advisory boards, uh sustainability

1:37:11 ↗ ambassadors Karen Mina probably

1:37:13 ↗ connecting with you and other youth

1:37:15 ↗ representatives on Sister Cities

1:37:17 ↗ Commission and the arts board um to

1:37:20 ↗ receive input and then hopefully um

1:37:23 ↗ having a project concept developed uh by

1:37:26 ↗ this winter that could then be

1:37:28 ↗ implemented in the spring. So just

1:37:31 ↗ moving forward uh nothing concrete yet

1:37:33 ↗ but a lot of um ideas and interest and

1:37:38 ↗ um we know that Shan's um committed to

1:37:41 ↗ moving

1:37:42 ↗ well. So as we have those conversations

1:37:46 ↗ with youth and start to shape more of a

1:37:48 ↗ project idea, we bring that up to

1:37:53 ↗ >> there's a lot of conversation about a

1:37:55 ↗ shared approach where

1:37:58 ↗ the ether be learning about the other

1:38:01 ↗ city while at the same time developing

1:38:02 ↗ some kind of art. they develop artwork

1:38:04 ↗ their location that they share with us

1:38:07 ↗ or they just they learn about our

1:38:09 ↗ location and and develop our work what

1:38:12 ↗ they think our location is.

1:38:15 ↗ So

1:38:16 ↗ >> yeah actually

1:38:19 ↗ so yeah and getting involved youth

1:38:21 ↗ involved with that I think is the best

1:38:23 ↗ way to go about it.

1:38:27 ↗ >> I was interested because my daughter

1:38:29 ↗ just went there.

1:38:30 ↗ >> Oh really? 18th summer just for a couple

1:38:32 ↗ days.

1:38:35 ↗ >> Um we also did our um sister city

1:38:38 ↗ leaison is interested in maybe talking

1:38:41 ↗ about bringing in the sister city in

1:38:43 ↗ Norway possibly into the project as

1:38:46 ↗ well. Not to complicate complicate

1:38:48 ↗ things but if um there is shared

1:38:50 ↗ interest there be great to bring in.

1:38:57 ↗ >> Great. And then I have um two quick

1:38:59 ↗ council updates and a couple reminders

1:39:03 ↗ for that. Um

1:39:05 ↗ last night there was a discussion on

1:39:07 ↗ tree code at one of our council

1:39:09 ↗ committees. Um I know Ann

1:39:12 ↗ was uh aware of this and some of you may

1:39:16 ↗ have been following it. Um I will note

1:39:18 ↗ there was an email from Connie last

1:39:21 ↗ night regarding this. So Minnie was

1:39:23 ↗ going to follow

1:39:25 ↗ today just to resolve or better

1:39:28 ↗ understand what the concern was. Um in

1:39:32 ↗ conversations with Minnie today, she did

1:39:34 ↗ um uh confirm that all the staff

1:39:37 ↗ recommendations that went to the council

1:39:39 ↗ committee were in line with the

1:39:40 ↗ environmental board recommendations.

1:39:43 ↗ Um the committee did end up um

1:39:46 ↗ recommending moving forward with the

1:39:48 ↗ code. There's a lot of there was a lot

1:39:50 ↗ of discussion during the meeting whether

1:39:53 ↗ to send it back um whether to send parts

1:39:55 ↗ of it forward. In the end they thought

1:39:58 ↗ it was best to move it forward at this

1:40:01 ↗ time in its current state but they have

1:40:04 ↗ asked staff to come back for kind of a

1:40:07 ↗ phase two and really revisit the tree

1:40:10 ↗ code. Um Minnie shared that um as and

1:40:15 ↗ we've heard from Dan Hins here that

1:40:17 ↗ there is going to be the King County

1:40:18 ↗ tree canopy study happening. Um and so

1:40:22 ↗ Minnie and her team think there'll be

1:40:24 ↗ results out of that that can be really

1:40:26 ↗ used to inform the next phase of the

1:40:28 ↗ tree code. Um as well as some tools that

1:40:32 ↗ will help uh better assessment tree

1:40:35 ↗ equity at the parcel level. Um, so

1:40:38 ↗ expect in 2026,

1:40:41 ↗ uh, we will be revisiting tree code. Um,

1:40:45 ↗ I know that was a very lengthy uh, topic

1:40:48 ↗ that we revisited several times this

1:40:50 ↗ spring and early summer, but um, it's a

1:40:52 ↗ really important one in the city. Um, so

1:40:54 ↗ we'll be critical for the environmental

1:40:56 ↗ board to weigh in again on any updates

1:40:58 ↗ to that.

1:41:00 ↗ Um on Monday at um committee of the

1:41:03 ↗ whole with council uh they did discuss

1:41:06 ↗ the title 18 whiteboard. think folks

1:41:10 ↗ remember that um when we for those that

1:41:12 ↗ weren't on the board a couple years ago

1:41:14 ↗ when we went through the big title 18

1:41:16 ↗ land use code update there were several

1:41:19 ↗ things um that either didn't get

1:41:21 ↗ addressed or were included with the note

1:41:26 ↗ that we needed to revise them such as

1:41:27 ↗ the sustainable building and green

1:41:30 ↗ building policy. Um so council discussed

1:41:34 ↗ um those priorities for our planning

1:41:37 ↗ department to look at. Um and it's very

1:41:41 ↗ likely next year in addition to tree

1:41:42 ↗ code we'll be revisiting the green

1:41:44 ↗ building policy with the opportunity to

1:41:47 ↗ expand beyond leaf platinum. Um so it'll

1:41:50 ↗ be a great opportunity for the board to

1:41:51 ↗ weigh in on that. Um and then Minnie did

1:41:54 ↗ mention there's the potential we'll be

1:41:56 ↗ getting into um wildfire risk and

1:41:59 ↗ critical area discussions which the

1:42:02 ↗ board would likely be. So shaping up to

1:42:05 ↗ possibly be a very busy 2026 um looking

1:42:09 ↗ at codes involve

1:42:12 ↗ any question on those two council

1:42:15 ↗ updates.

1:42:16 ↗ All right. Um and then last thing uh our

1:42:19 ↗ next meeting in October will be bringing

1:42:21 ↗ back sustainable building um and

1:42:23 ↗ infrastructure policy for uh potential

1:42:26 ↗ action and then starting conversation

1:42:29 ↗ planning date. Um and then as a reminder

1:42:33 ↗ I think you all have on your calendarly

1:42:36 ↗ um October 15th we are planning a town

1:42:39 ↗ hall event at the King County Library.

1:42:42 ↗ Um we will be sending out um a flyer on

1:42:46 ↗ that probably early next week. We're

1:42:49 ↗ confirming one of the um partners

1:42:52 ↗ whether they'll be speaking. Um so we'll

1:42:55 ↗ make sure that that is that you all are

1:42:57 ↗ have that invitation and you can spread

1:42:58 ↗ the word with your networks on that

1:43:00 ↗ event.

1:43:01 ↗ >> Is this the one for the climate action

1:43:02 ↗ or

1:43:03 ↗ >> Yes.

1:43:04 ↗ >> Yes. Do you still need any help with

1:43:06 ↗ that? I have you down that volunteered

1:43:08 ↗ possibly to help out

1:43:10 ↗ >> especially for planning purposes. If you

1:43:12 ↗ need any definitely okay

1:43:15 ↗ >> there's more than was it six of us got

1:43:17 ↗ that doesn't have to be

1:43:18 ↗ >> I'll probably noted as a special meeting

1:43:20 ↗ because we'd really like all of you

1:43:23 ↗ there. It's a town hall with the mayor

1:43:24 ↗ to talk about our progress on climate

1:43:26 ↗ and sustainability as well as hear from

1:43:29 ↗ other partners and then we'll be there

1:43:31 ↗ to get some input on some aspect of the

1:43:34 ↗ climate plan. We haven't figured that

1:43:36 ↗ out yet, but yeah, we would really like

1:43:38 ↗ the full board there. So, we'll plan to

1:43:40 ↗ mark it as special meeting.

1:43:45 ↗ >> That's it. Any other big

1:43:48 ↗ >> Yeah. So, our um tree giveaway program

1:43:50 ↗ is launching the applications open on

1:43:53 ↗ next Friday the se 19th September. Um we

1:43:57 ↗ are doing kind of a slow roll of

1:43:59 ↗ announcement um and focusing our

1:44:01 ↗ outreach uh immediately on areas that

1:44:04 ↗ have lower tree canopy cover in the city

1:44:06 ↗ first. Um so uh all that's to say you

1:44:10 ↗ might start seeing some lawn signs go

1:44:12 ↗ up. You might start seeing flyers at

1:44:13 ↗ some community facilities. We have

1:44:15 ↗ around 275 to 300 trees um that we'll be

1:44:19 ↗ giving away. Um so if you're interested

1:44:22 ↗ it is open to it will be open to uh any

1:44:26 ↗ resident of Isiqua um small business

1:44:28 ↗ located in Isiqua nonprofit located in

1:44:30 ↗ Isiqua etc. Um starting September 19th

1:44:35 ↗ and information is on the website. So um

1:44:39 ↗ we don't know how quick the trees are

1:44:41 ↗ going to go. This is our first time ever

1:44:43 ↗ doing it. So we will

1:44:44 ↗ >> Where did you get the trees?

1:44:47 ↗ Um,

1:44:48 ↗ uh, 25 of them were I think Annum

1:44:53 ↗ saved them, res rescued them. Those were

1:44:56 ↗ Douglas bars.

1:44:58 ↗ >> Um, the rest of the trees I have to look

1:45:01 ↗ back at which nursery we got them from,

1:45:03 ↗ but

1:45:03 ↗ >> So they were pot potted up.

1:45:05 ↗ >> Yes. So they're I think the smallest

1:45:07 ↗ trees are in like two gallon buckets,

1:45:10 ↗ but it's like two to five gallon bucket

1:45:12 ↗ trees. And there's about 10 different

1:45:14 ↗ types of trees that we're giving away.

1:45:16 ↗ Um, community members can take up to two

1:45:18 ↗ trees. Um, again, like nonprofits,

1:45:21 ↗ things like that can take up to 10

1:45:23 ↗ trees. Sign up for up to 10 trees. So,

1:45:27 ↗ and then the actual giveaway event will

1:45:29 ↗ be in November, but there's an

1:45:31 ↗ application process first so that we can

1:45:33 ↗ figure out how many of each trees we're

1:45:34 ↗ getting and order them and uh prepare

1:45:38 ↗ for the event. So, just a spin on this.

1:45:41 ↗ Um, I was mentioning this earlier. I I

1:45:45 ↗ tend to um save uh volunteer trees and

1:45:51 ↗ that pot them up and then grow them up.

1:45:53 ↗ That's something we could do in the

1:45:55 ↗ community as a as a as a u as a feeder

1:45:59 ↗ to something like this where people

1:46:01 ↗ could, you know, they see a tree

1:46:04 ↗ sprouting up in their, you know, in

1:46:07 ↗ their ditch or whatever, they dig it

1:46:09 ↗ out, pot it up and nurse it for a year

1:46:12 ↗ and then bring it to one of these

1:46:13 ↗ events.

1:46:14 ↗ >> Or if there was a place they could just

1:46:16 ↗ pot it up and drop it off.

1:46:17 ↗ >> Yeah. When a nursery facility, parks

1:46:21 ↗ department comes by and takes through.

1:46:22 ↗ someone squirted with water.

1:46:25 ↗ >> Could definitely be something we talk

1:46:26 ↗ about with Dan and uh explore.

1:46:30 ↗ >> We'll send out a link to the

1:46:33 ↗ website that

1:46:36 ↗ >> So, I hope you get a tree if you're uh

1:46:39 ↗ looking to plant in your yard and

1:46:40 ↗ otherwise spread the word with folks

1:46:42 ↗ especially in Isiqua Highlands, downtown

1:46:45 ↗ Isiqua, Central Isaac, South Co. Um

1:46:49 ↗ yeah, thank you.

1:46:52 ↗ That it.

1:46:53 ↗ >> All right. Thanks everybody.

1:46:56 ↗ Thank you.

1:47:00 ↗ >> Thank you.

1:47:02 ↗ >> Thanks.

1:47:03 ↗ >> Thanks.

1:47:04 ↗ Happy.

Approved minutes

The minutes PDF below is the canonical record. Structured parsing of attendance and motions for this body's minutes format is not yet implemented — open the PDF for the full content.

Open PDF