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

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

Open PDF

Attendance

Council / Members (7)

Don McQuilliams

Mina (Alexandra) Jun

Prajakta Ghatpande

Tom Anderson

Kiran Pan

Tommy DuBeau

Jonathan Smith

Staff (2)

Stacy Vynne McKinstry, Sustainability Manager

David Reedy, Sustainability Coordinator

Excused

Alix Lee-Tigner

Nancy Davidson

Keith Gonzales

Anne Newcomb

Dixie Bair

Audience commenters (1)

ANN FLETCHER

Recommendations & actions (2)

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

The minutes were approved as presented by unanimous consent.
Board Members recommended updating the policy to include action steps in 2030 in addition to