Jul 28, 2023 Sustainability Framework Advisory Committee on 2023-07-28 1:00 PM

Hello everyone, welcome to the sustainability framework advisory committee. It is Friday July 28 2023 at one o'clock, we are in the city council work session room, and we do have a quorum. Today we will start with our items for individual consideration, a consider approval of the may 26 2023 minutes, so you want to have any comments on those, no comments, anyone like to motion to approve, I move approve, okay, second, Adam, all right, all in favor of approval of the minutes, okay, and we have a change in our agenda, so we are going to be moving item D receive an update from the city secretary regarding sustainability framework advisory committee membership terms and appointment processes up, and then we will begin with the agenda B through F after that. So if we want to go ahead and open that item, okay, welcome, hi, I've only been doing boards and commission vetting and appointment stuff for well less than two weeks now, so I might not be the best person to ask questions, but I see that you got my card, if you have any questions, please email me and I will get back to you Monday for sure on any questions, and I just wanted to let you know, there appears to be three people who, terms, my glasses broke, I'm wearing an old pair of glasses, so I'm having one heck of a time reading this. I see that there are three people that terms end on August 31st, Edward Sofe, Brand Richter and then Keely Briggs, if you would like to be considered for reappointment, we ask that you just complete the online application again, which is on the webpage, and when you do that, just enter your personal email and it should bring up your member details when you're reapplying, and then after you finish that, if you would contact your nominating council member, and I can tell you who that is if you want, see for Edward Sofe, it is Mayor Pro Tem Beck, for Brand Richter, it is Brandon Chase McGee, and then for Keely Briggs, it is Chris Watts, and just let them know that you have reapplied, and what they do after that is they will email the city secretary's office and we put you in for vetting again, which it's really easy when you reapply, because we just check your residency and then the indebtedness again, and it usually takes less than two or three days and our goal is to get as many people that are reapplying on the August 15th city council agenda to get them confirmed for that, and vetting, we give them a week, but honestly, I push them after three days, I'll send them an email today saying, hey, could you please do this, and they usually get back to me that day, so usually I can get it done in about three days, but it can take up to a week for the re-vetting, and also, there should be, I don't know if you guys all, you all have city emails, right? On June 9th, they sent out an email going over the, if you needed to, if your terms were expiring, and so you might want to check that too, but honestly, all you have to do is go to the webpage and reapply, and it might be in your spam, I'm not sure, I mean, it's not a big deal if you just go to the website. Can I ask a quick question? Sure. Where on the website would I go to do what I need to do? When you go on the website, the way I found it this morning, I just literally searched boards and commissions, got on the boards and commissions page, and then it'll just have a little box that says apply, just click on that, and I think it's like in the middle on the right side, and it's a yellow box. If I have any problem, I'll call you. Yeah. And if there's any other questions, I think that's. If we're not listed there, does that mean our term expires a year from then? Yes, it'll be a year, yeah. The other terms, and I'll leave this here if you want to look at it, it's just my notes, and you'll probably have a better chance of reading it than I will, because I printed it way too small, but it'll have your present term and the expiration dates and stuff, and I'll show it to you, and like I said, I'll leave it here, no big deal. And are there also empty seats that need to be nominated? There are two empty seats that need to be nominated, and I am not sure. We sent out emails last week to council members saying that they have vacant spots, so, and I think they are in the process of vetting for those spots, but I'm not sure on sustainability if one or two of them have been, are being vetted as we speak, I'm not sure on that. Okay, thank you. Yep. Do you have a question? Okay. Thank you. All right, we will continue with our agenda and go to, back up to B, receive a report, hold a discussion, and give staff direction regarding climate action and adaptation plan emissions, reductions, and community priorities. And we are going to be doing Zoom on this item. And we have Moira from SSG on with us via Zoom. Hello, welcome. Thank you so much. And I will share my screen with you now. It always takes a second. All right. Okay. Is that appearing for you now? Great. All right. Good afternoon. It's my pleasure to be with you today. I haven't met you before. My colleague Carol usually presents to you as we've been progressing through this project, but I've always been there in the background watching, so I feel like I have heard from all of you before. My name is Maurea Braun. I'm the project lead on the SSG team that's been working with your city administration to develop the climate action and adaptation plan. And we have a lot of material to cover today, but I think it's really interesting material, and I'm really anxious to hear from you on all of this content. All right. So the last time Carol was with you, they shared some of the climate actions that we were going to model for Denton. So today I'll be sharing what the results of that modeling can tell us about how you may potentially reduce your greenhouse gas emissions. I'll show you how much of your emissions between now and 2050, each of the actions that we discussed then will eliminate, and I'll also tell you what those actions will cost and what they'll earn or save in many cases. And after we've looked at each group of actions, we'll share some of the ideas that we've heard from Dentonites, both through our community survey and from focus groups. So we'll begin by looking at Denton's likely greenhouse gas emissions trajectories in three different scenarios. On this graph, the top blue line is one that you've seen before. That is from 2019 to 2050 representing Denton's emissions in the businesses planned scenario. That's what we call it. And just to remind you of what's in that scenario, that reflects the expected growth of the community with the population doubling in this timeframe. It also includes expected trends. For example, what the NCT cog is forecasting EV uptake will be over the next 27 years. That's in that BAP line. It also reflects the climate changes that we're expecting in Denton. More heat waves and an overall higher average annual temperature over that time. And then the implications of that on your need for air conditioning and so on. And it includes work that is already planned and approved by your city administration, such as installing the anaerobic digester at your water reclamation plant. And all of those expectations put together are reflected in that line. So with doubling your population, warming climate, and so on, your emissions would be projected to increase by 31% by 2050 relative to 2019. I'll shift your focus then to the purple line at the bottom. This one shows you the trajectory that you would need to follow if you are to meet your climate action goals. We've noted with a circle that in 2030, your goal is to have eliminated 46.3% of your emissions. And if you were to reach that goal, you would need to emit no more than 704,000 tons of greenhouse gases. And then from there, your emissions would continue to trend downward until they reach zero in 2050. And then you can shift to the green line in the middle. This represents Denton's trajectory if all of the climate actions that we modeled for you are completed over time. So this is the line that represents what we modeled, switching to more of your new residences being apartments, taking fewer trips in vehicles, and more of them biking and walking, a faster uptake of EVs, and also changing your energy sources to more renewables. We'll talk about those in more detail next. But immediately, I think when you look at this, you can see two things. First of all, the low carbon pathway that we modeled for you is a dramatic reduction. It's a reduction of 87% in 2050, relative to the DAP scenario. And that's excellent. It's not fast enough to meet your 2030 goal, though. And we'll talk about that more a little later on. I also want to remind you of what these lines and what this modeling did not include. The policies, the incentives, and the programs that are used to make these changes happen are not part of what you see here. This is simply a representation of what Denton's emissions would be if this set of actions were completed. This is another depiction of your low carbon scenario and how things would change over time. So the wedges that you see here are showing you different fuel types and how some of them will be decreasing and being replaced by others. So the large dark blue section on the bottom represents gasoline, for example. And it doesn't decrease very much until relatively late in the game. But the pale blue wedge closer to the top represents natural gas. And that one you see is disappearing quite a bit before 2050. And then in contrast to that, the yellow wedge represents grid electricity. And we are definitely shifting a lot of the way that Denton would be operating to a greater use of electricity. I've embedded the 2030 target in here again to show you where that number stands relative to fuel use. So you can see that almost just the use of gasoline alone takes you up to that target number. So as our discussion continues, you'll find me stating a few times that transportation is going to have to be a big focus. It's also an area where you have both challenges in terms of what you can do or what can be achieved by a municipality, but also a lot of opportunities that are really positive. Now, actually, I'm going to stop there for a second, back up, and I'm just going to pause and ask, are there any questions that anyone has on any of that information? Start with Adam. Yeah, thank you. Can you just explain what non-energy is on this graph? Sure. Yes. Those are your emissions from waste sources. So that would be waste water, emissions from waste water, sludge, and also emissions from the landfill. And it's just the portion that isn't being captured by your landfill gas capture system. I was just going to ask if you could go back to the previous slide. Sure. Oh, and should I start sharing again? And then could you give us the values of what the low carbon reduction and the target reduction are? I understand you gave us the relative increase and decrease, but I was hoping you could share with us, on that 2050 marker, the separation, what's the value between the low carbon and the target? Low carbon and the target. I can look that up for you in a little bit. I don't have the screen in front of me. I believe it's about 170,000. Okay. Thank you. Yes. Go ahead. Hold on a minute. Could you go to the next slide, please? Sure. Is RNG renewable natural gas? Yes, it is. And how is that different from natural natural gas? Natural natural gas refers to fossil fuel based natural gas. Renewable natural gas is produced by transforming waste, so organic waste often, into and waste water, sludge, into a gas by purifying it. Thank you very much. You're welcome. And just to clarify, natural gas, the fossil fuel kind, is considered to be an emitting gas, a highly emitting gas. Renewable natural gas, because it comes from sources that actually absorb carbon dioxide, is considered to be emissions neutral. So it isn't, using it does not contribute to your inventory. Thanks. Yeah. I think we're good on questions if you want to continue. Okay. Oops, I'll jump back to my, where we were. Okay. So before I show you the summary financials, I want to tell you what was included in that analysis. And first of all, the numbers we show you today are costs and savings for the whole community. Some costs will be borne by businesses, others by the city, and similarly some savings will be realized by homeowners, others by businesses, and others by the city. So it's a combination of all of those participants for which we're showing you the values today. So the values that we calculated for you included at a high level, these three categories of costs and savings. So capital costs being the upfront purchase costs of new materials, equipment and so on. Operations and maintenance costs, such as regular vehicle maintenance. And then thirdly, energy or fuel costs. And each of these types of costs or savings were calculated for these sectors. So for buildings, equipment, vehicles, energy production, like solar energy production or wind power production, land use and infrastructure as well. Those last two categories would be costs and savings for the city primarily. So for example, when we retrofit a house, we included the capital cost of adding new windows, doors, and insulation. But then we also included the expected savings in energy costs to heat and cool that building after the retrofits were completed. And similarly, in the case of vehicles, we've included the capital cost of a new electric vehicle. And we've also included the savings on both fuel and maintenance costs that would then be experienced for the owner of that vehicle. And now here's a financial summary of the actions in the plan we did for Denton. So to reduce Denton's emissions by 87% by 2050 would require, if we start in the top row, a total investment of $3.25 billion over the period of 2023 to 2050. And that's an average of $120.3 million annually. On the second row, we see that it would return a total of $7.25 billion in savings or revenue. It's a combination of the two. And that's an average of $268.5 million annually. So overall, that's a net savings, community-wide, of $4.003 billion over the whole period. If you looked at it as an investment, that would be returning an average of 8.3% annually. Or you could look at it as returning $2.23 for every dollar invested. And from the perspective of cost per ton eliminated, it will actually save over $3,000 for every metric ton of carbon dioxide that you eliminate. And I'll stop there again, because I suspect there could be questions. Do you have any questions for me on that, Simon? You were right. I do have a -- I don't -- I have many questions, but let me just try to pick the one that stood out for me most. Can you explain to us how this plan would generate an overall savings of just over $4 billion by 2050? Yes, I can. I can do my best in the remaining time we have today, because I'm going to go into the details of the actions in the following slides. So maybe we should continue through those. And if there are still questions that you have about specifics, you can ask me after that. Is that okay? That sounds good. Okay. Any other high-level questions? No? All right. We'll continue then. All right. So we'll look first at renewable energy. And the actions that we modeled included these four primarily. So by 2048, Denton would have 149 megawatts of rooftop solar. You have 9 megawatts right now, so that's an increase of 140. By 2050, you would have 68 megawatts of generating capability from local renewable sources with control. And that is made up primarily of wind and ground mount solar. Thirdly, you would be diverting organic waste into your wastewater processing. And digesting that in an anaerobic digester to produce renewable natural gas. And fourthly, some of the wind power that would be installed would be further processed to produce green hydrogen. So all of those changes together would save 4.6 megatons of emissions between now and 2050, which makes up 17.8% of the total reductions that we achieve for you. And from a cost perspective, the first two are combined together. So installing 149 megawatts of rooftop solar as well as the ground mount solar and wind would eliminate 96,000 tons of emissions, which is 0.4% of the total. The investment is just under 200 million and the return is 292.8 million. So your net present value then is 93.2 million. And that is simply, if I can explain what the components of those investments and returns are. The investment would refer primarily to the equipment, the capital costs of the equipment and the labor to have those systems installed. And the return is entirely savings over the same period of time between 2023 and 2050 on costs that would otherwise have been spent to purchase that electricity. And that works out to a net value of 93.2 million. So from the perspective of how much is it costing you to eliminate a single ton of carbon dioxide using these technologies, it's a savings of $968 per ton when all of the savings out to 2050 are taken into consideration. Renewable natural gas then and hydrogen are both situations in which you would be producing some from your own locally available renewable resources and procuring the balance. So in the case of renewable natural gas, you have a tremendous opportunity to eliminate 3.7 megatons of emissions, 15% of the total. There is a significant cost associated with that and a certain amount of return in terms of savings on energy costs to the wastewater processing facility. So overall, it would be a cost of $216 million or $58 per ton. The investment cost here does not include the anaerobic digester because that's already been accounted for in the business's planned scenario. So these are all incremental costs. And this cost then represents the cost of purchasing additional renewable natural gas in addition to what you're able to produce locally to replace the use of natural natural gas, particularly in industry and also, no, actually it was almost entirely in industry. Industry is a place where high temperature fuels are still important and renewable natural gas is an excellent alternative to natural gas in those contexts. So we used this amount and this cost to provide sufficient renewable natural gas to you to continue using it in your industry. Hydrogen then eliminated a smaller amount of emissions. The cost is a little bit higher, the return is a little bit lower. So this one is actually more costly overall, and it costs $340 per ton. Hydrogen is also one of those energy sources that can be used in industry. So it's valuable in that sense. It can be produced locally using electrolysis from wind. So that's a positive thing. You don't have to ship it in necessarily, you can produce it locally. And it can be used to fuel long distance freight hauling. So there are very specific contexts in which it's useful, but it's also expensive. I'm going to stop soon. Let me just see where I go next. Maybe I should stop there. Did you want to ask me any questions on the specifics of this? Do we have any questions? Ed? Yeah, the city currently bases a lot of its renewable energy capabilities on the purchase of REX. And do REX in any way enter into the projections that you're presenting here? They're included here. So because they're already in place, they weren't an additional action that we modeled, but we continued to include them right out to 2050 because they make up your DME renewable electricity source. So all of that is still in place throughout this plan. So how would that affect discussions for more community solar? Because there's frequently a reply that we're already all renewable energy because of the REX and that could be used, I would assume, as an excuse for not actually installing community solar and virtual power plants and that sort of thing. So how does that work, that we still have REX, but we go beyond that? Yeah. Yeah. So there are a few ways that you can look at it. I think one is the perspective that having solar locally and on your own home or on buildings within your community improves your resilience tremendously. So in addition to installing solar on these homes and the costs that are shown here, we also included, actually, I will share this again, just in case you want to see this screen again from the current slide, there we go. Having that power generation right within your community makes you more resilient when the grid goes out. So it is possible if you have battery storage connected to a solar system for you to continue operating on that battery storage for some time. And that is a definite benefit in a situation where the climate is warming. So there is that argument for it, which could be used. There's also the thinking that ultimately you want to be producing as much of your own electricity locally as possible so that you aren't in need of offsetting the fossil fuels that you're using. You can actually produce them locally. So as the deck ages, you'll want to be looking at alternatives and the more renewable options you have locally already installed, the easier that transition will be. So we're also planning a long-term plan here to get you all the way to 2050. And so increasing and encouraging people to install local solar is still a very positive option and the energy savings to them, I think, makes homeownership more affordable and is a big part of reducing the cost or improving the situation with regards to homeownership and affordability. So just a little more. So do you think it's vital or a really good idea that the city would -- continues to incentivize residential solar installations? I think -- Sorry. Go ahead. No, it's okay. Did you want to extend? Well, I mean, that's currently what was done in our green sense program, but they've removed the solar incentives, as far as I know, at this point. So would it be better to continue incentives such as that? I would let the city respond to that because they'll have more specific knowledge about all of the factors that go into that decision, but I would say as much as a city can incentivize all of these actions is positive. But as you can see, even from the cost relative to the amount of greenhouse gas savings, some actions are more effective than others. And our own modeling confirmed that, for example, retrofitting buildings to make more energy efficient has a greater impact on emissions reductions than installing solar. So there is an argument for the idea that that is a more effective -- in a time of limited funding, that is a more effective way to spend dollars than rooftop solar systems. But I wouldn't answer on behalf of the city. I don't know -- Katherine, do you want to respond to that? We have an item on the agenda today to talk about green sense. So we can talk about it at that time. Thank you very much. I think we have a couple more questions. Brian? Yeah, I think it would be very helpful to dig into more of the details, especially on the solar question when we hit that agenda item, but I guess I also wanted a little more on the renewable natural gas, since that's a really high volume of emissions that we're looking at reducing. And I'm just curious so far as the costs and kind of two questions here. First, could you high-level the sources that the city emits from renewable natural gases that that reduction target is coming from? And then two, you kind of shared that most of this is somewhat industry-related as well, so I'm curious on -- and I don't know if this is the time to get granular on these things, but the types of strategies that the city could help to push that sort of reduction if this is mostly an industry concern for where that emission source is coming from? I think I can answer your first question now and then maybe hold the second question until we get to the slide about approaches for energy, if that's okay with you. The sources of natural gas that we targeted overall in the plan are all types of buildings, so any heating system, a natural gas furnace, would be one of our main targets. We did, however, in the case of most buildings, replace those in our modelling with heat pumps, so either ground or air source heat exchange systems. So that -- the RNG is not replacing that type of use of natural gas. That's already been done with heat pumps. The area where natural gas has unique qualities that really can't be replaced by something like a heat pump is in industry, so that would include everything from vehicle manufacture or steel manufacture to -- let me see, what else would I think -- well, actually, also, the natural gas that's used in the deck would also be included in this total, although it's been reduced slightly by the wind and ground mount solar generation, so we are working at reducing that over time, but that would also be one of the sources, so that was seen as part of the industrial sector. So any sort of heavy-duty manufacturing generally uses renewable natural gas to -- as a clean alternative in future cases. And then your other question was related to approaches, yes. So remind me of that when we get to the approaches slide. Thank you. Adam? You're good? Okay. I think we're ready to move on. Okay. Oops. So challenges. A challenge that's unique to Texas is the restrictions on regulating renewable energy. That certainly makes it more difficult for a community to set up regulations about the types of heating and cooling systems that are used in buildings. A second one that comes up often and is often raised by utilities is the question of if we electrify everything, as we saw in that earlier slide, if we really make a big shift towards everything being powered with electricity, will we be able to provide enough electricity and will our distribution capacity be able to handle that? So we did a small analysis of that for you. And an explanation of why the answer is yes begins with recognition that the technologies we work with today are generally inefficient. So furnaces, a high efficiency furnace, natural gas furnace today is generally about 96% efficient. That is, it only needs about 4% of the energy that it takes in in total to operate the furnace. Combustion vehicles, on the other hand, are incredibly inefficient users of the gas or diesel that they use. They're only about 12 to 30% efficient. So that's today's world. In the future, the scenario that we've proposed for you, we're replacing those furnaces with heat pumps. And heat pumps are 300 to 400% efficient. That always confused me until I realized what it meant is that they take one unit of electricity and are able to produce three to four units of heat from that one unit of electricity. And that's how they come up with that factor, that increased efficiency. EVs are more than 77% efficient. So they're also making a significant difference. So those two changes alone are really cutting down on the total amount of electricity that you're going to use. So if we look at it, the shares across three scenarios. So firstly, in 2019, electricity, which is again the yellow area of that bar, made up 31% of Denton's total energy use. In the BAP scenario in 2050, that is rising. It's rising to 50% of total energy used. And the amount of energy used is rising significantly as well. In the low carbon scenario, the total amount of energy used only increases a bit from the 2019 situation. Most of it is electricity, but the bars are almost exactly the same size between the BAP and the low carbon. So if I look at just those three bars together, in 2019, you had about 6 million gigajoules of electricity used. In 2050, in the BAP situation, you would have 20.5 gigajoules. And in the low carbon situation, you would actually have 20.47, so just slightly less. So if your utility is building out sufficiently to meet the business's plan scenario, it will be enough to meet the low carbon scenario. Do you have any questions on that explanation? I think we do, Adam. Yeah. Can you go back one slide, please? Yes. Actually, sorry, one more. Okay. Oops. This one? Yeah. So this is my question about EVs. I understand they're 77 plus efficient when you consider the electricity already being there and translating that electricity into forward momentum of a car. But isn't it still going to be the case that you have a lot of efficiency losses across the transmission and distribution lines to get the electricity to the vehicle? Well, that's a very strong argument to gain in favor of localizing as much of that electricity as possible. So the shorter the transmission distance, the less you lose. But it is not, that is actually, it's included in our calculations, the losses due to transmission and distribution. And they're not sufficient to affect those final slides that I showed you, the ones that follow. Okay, so that's 77 efficiency number in the slides following factor into the account, the efficiency losses across transmission and distribution lines. Yes. Okay. Thank you. Yep. Any other questions? I think we're good. Okay. All right. So talking about opportunities then, a lot of these ideas came to us from surveys, the survey to the community and also from focus groups. And some of them are just evident from what we've already been talking about. So the fact that your municipality has control of key utilities is a real opportunity because it gives them the ability to make decisions about what's going to happen at those utilities. To what extent will organics be included in anaerobic digestion and those kinds of things that makes that decision making process much more straightforward? Renewable natural gas will allow the water reclamation plant to become a net zero emitter by 2033. It will also divert organic waste and it will produce zero emissions fuel for industry, which is a difficult sector of society to decarbonize. So all of those make that a real opportunity for you. Living in Texas, you have an abundant source of renewables and that includes both intermittent. Wind and solar are intermittent renewables, but you also have opportunities for dispatchable renewables. So you're in a good position geographically to be able to take advantage of these sources nearby. And finally, dentonites continue to be very supportive of renewable energy. 63% of our survey respondents were interested in installing solar panels on their homes. So they're still seeing the value of having those systems on their own buildings. Now approaches. The approaches that we're going to present to you today, we group into three categories, requiring or mandating, incentivizing or encouraging. So clearly the most strong armed is the requiring, incentivizing is a little less strong and encouraging is quite a gentle approach to making the change happen. Under the require category in energy, I created this phrase, but it is in existence in the industry in general, fuel agnostic energy intensity standards. So in most communities, we recommend that switching to net zero emissions, heating and cooling systems for space heating and cooling and for domestic water use be one of the first things that a city puts into its building code to make it happen, mandate it, just make it unquestionable. You still have to educate the community and teach builders how to build to those standards. But other than that, just mandate it. In Texas, we can't do that. So we've been talking about different ways that the city could approach requiring an energy intensity or an energy efficiency that's so high that only a decarbonized system would be able to meet it. So that's one of the alternatives that we're looking at, and that's going to be looked at as part of the legal evaluation that's being done in Denton. Some ideas for incentivizing the energy shift would include expediting permits and inspections for builders who are installing zero emission systems. And also the city's own opportunities to build or own zero emissions energy production on behalf of the community, much like it purchases REX for the DME today. Encouraging could include opportunities like partnering with trade schools to train low income dentonites so that you both skill up those people and give them good jobs for the future, and you also ensure that you have enough workforce in place to be able to make these changes to your community. And finally, educating the community about the benefits of renewable energy. There's a lot to learn about how all of these systems work and why they're a good idea, and as much as you can do to move that ahead will benefit you. Now this is where I thought I could talk about the approach question that you had. What was that question again? That was under the renewable natural gas for industry and ways that as a municipality since we're looking at, you know, scope of control, that the city could help push on the industry side that sort of adoption. Okay. That feels that I have a different answer in my head now than I had before. So that also relates to the actions that we modeled for industry. First of all, to reduce their overall energy use before they switch to RNG. Actually that one, I think I'm going to hold on that question because ways to stimulate industry to make a shift to renewable natural gas. That's a complex one. So I might need to get back to you on that one, if that's all right. I will go. I'm not going to just let it go. Thank you. Okay. Okay. We do have another question. Okay. Go ahead. This was on your, I love the creative, fuel agnostic energy intensity standards. We've discussed in the past, I believe when Carol was here, that stipulation by the state for our situation. And if I'm remembering right, she had said that your firm has worked with other cities within Texas. Is that correct? Probably in Texas, but in other states, I'm sorry that I misremembered that. I'm just curious if you had any, if you've seen our situation played out in a way where a city has creative approaches to incentivize that type of shift within buildings, since we can't mandate the type of energy used within a building. If you've seen that play out in cities that it's worked, that we have kind of a model to work off of, or is this going to be a little creative on the city side to push for that sort of reduction on the buildings? I think creativity is going to be really important in a context like yours. I myself am from Alberta and our government is similar in Canada and our government is similar to Texas, although we don't have a law in place limiting what cities can do with regards to types of energy used within buildings. So we don't have this specific challenge, but what we did when I worked for the city of Edmonton was we worked very closely with the cities around us and the smaller communities around us because the argument we heard from builders and developers was that if it was more expensive to build right in the city of Edmonton, then people will want to build their homes in the bedroom communities around Edmonton. So we worked with those communities such that they asked, they wanted to make the same changes we were making at the same time, and we approached the provincial government together as a unified region and asked or lobbied to have those changes made within our broader area. And in that context, we were able to get those changes made. So it will take creativity and it depends very much on the local specifics. This approach I think it may also work not only because fossil fuels are unable to be as efficient as renewable energy, but also because there's a requirement in some standards like a passive house standard for a very limited amount of air exchange and fossil fuels require higher amounts of air exchange. And so that may also be one sense in which you may be able to require something which isn't, doesn't actually speak the word fossil fuel, but it does eliminate that that source of energy from the game. I'm not sure that quite answered your question, but no thank you. Any other thoughts here? I think we can move on. All right. Buildings then. So the two actions we modeled to reduce building emissions were firstly to retrofit all of the buildings in the city gradually over time, making them more energy efficient. And the second was to require that all new construction is net zero energy ready beginning in 2028. Further these two actions eliminate 2.8 megatons of emissions, which is 10.8% of the total emissions that we eliminated. And then on top of that, once the buildings have been made more energy efficient, we modeled two additional significant changes. So starting in 2024, new warehouses use waste heat from industry next to them. And we modeled the estimated value of about 10% of their energy would be reduced. Their need for energy would be reduced by doing this. And on top of that, all industry reduces their energy use by 30%, either by improving motive apparatus within manufacturing, process improvements, practices like turning off the lights or turning off motors that are allowed to run through the night, all of those sorts of things would amount to about a 30% reduction. Then the second change here is beginning in 2025, we would make that shift over to heat pumps. So achieving a 25% shift by 2030, 50% by 2035 and 75% by 2040. And again, some of these things are still are also being submitted as part of the legal evaluation. And the heat pump shift, we're also sending through as part of that, just to make sure that would be something that would be feasible. And those changes together would eliminate 2.2 megatons. And that's 8.6 of the total reductions. Obviously here we see some actions that are net costs. The building's action with the greatest impact for raising the standards is raising the standards for new construction to be net zero. This makes up 7% of all of the reductions achieved. There is an incremental cost upfront. Net zero homes are on average 4% more expensive to build than a home built code. However, the energy savings vastly offset that initial incremental cost. So that one is still a case where you have a net savings. And it's the homeowner who is going to experience the value of that saving. The changes to industry are also a net savings, which is actually a strong incentive to them to make performance and energy efficiency improvements before they switch to a new fuel type. It's important, though, when you look at the two items, the retrofitting and the switching to heat pumps and noticing the fact that those have a higher cost associated with them. It's important to remember a couple of things. Firstly, when heat pumps are combined with net zero construction, the overall finances are still a significant savings. So the overall cost is still much less than the benefit that's realized from the savings. And secondly, the retrofitting of buildings can't be seen as optional in any net zero plan. Existing buildings produced 22% of Denton's emissions in 2019, and you aren't going to get to any sort of net zero situation unless the leakage of heat and cool air out of those buildings is addressed. On the bright side, though, there is significant funding available right now through the IRA to make those changes, and doing so makes those homes healthier, more comfortable, and longer lasting. And all of those things are very important, particularly to communities that have less money to invest in a brand new home. And I will do the next -- oh, no, shall I stop on that financial slide? Were there any specific questions there? >> I think we can continue. >> Okay. All right. This shows you the drop in emissions from buildings specifically in the low carbon scenario. So you can see there's a dramatic drop, and that it crosses all building types right out to 2050. And from a homeowner's perspective, the green line on this slide shows us how the average energy used in a Denton household will fall over time as the retrofits continue and building standards rise. As shown relative to the BAP, which is the blue line on the top, overall, the decrease is 55% in energy use in an average household, which means that the household costs and overall house ownership affordability improves. Challenges regarding buildings. As we've mentioned already, the upfront costs can be high. And for lower income people in particular, that can be a barrier. There is a risk that rent could be increased after upgrades are made to a building, although there may be ways for the city to try and mitigate that risk. People need education about the benefits of these changes and about what the impact of the logistics of going through a retrofit will be. The changes need to be normalized, I suppose. They need to get used to seeing these changes happen around them and the fact that people benefit from them after they're completed. And the construction workforce will need training, they'll need to be brought up to newer standards and that will need to happen quickly. There are opportunities, though, too. So improved health and comfort, particularly for vulnerable people, as well as being able to ensure that people are able to cool themselves in their homes when outdoor temperatures rise. You also have a large student population and they need opportunities to earn microcredits and to complete practical elements of their programs. This is an inexpensive workforce that you should draw upon to educate and support the population in understanding and becoming part of making these changes. You're also preparing those students to become the leaders of tomorrow and making sure that they have practical experience in working in a zero emissions community. And it's also important to note that 65% of our survey respondents were interested in improving the insulation in their homes to prevent the loss of heated and cooled air. This was the action that they were most interested in, actually, closely followed by installing more efficient windows and doors. And these are relatively simple actions to complete and there's funding available for them. So this represents a tremendous opportunity for Denton to reduce its emissions, make buildings more affordable and improve living conditions. And we've also seen that energy costs decrease and the building's value increases, which increases resale value. So approaches to making these changes in buildings. In these three categories again, we'll start with require. The city can lead, show leadership by requiring that all of its buildings in the future be built to net zero standards and they can make that happen as quickly as possible. And then shortly thereafter, require that of all new buildings in the community as well. We've highlighted that these are also ideas that are being evaluated, going through a legal evaluation. Incentivizing approaches include promoting pace in Denton, which I believe you're going to hear more about later today. That's a very effective program and I would encourage you to take advantage of it and promote it as much as you possibly can. The city can also continue its funding for energy efficiency upgrades. And actually, as I mentioned earlier, dollar for dollar retrofitting eliminates more emissions than simply installing a solar system. So those programs should definitely continue. And then in the encourage category, there's education again. And focus group participants emphasize that Dentonites really like to get behind small businesses, small local businesses. So supporting and celebrating small commercial businesses that make changes to become more energy efficient and to switch to zero emission systems will really make a difference in encouraging others to make the same changes. So now that's the building section. So I'll stop there again. Are there any questions that error or comments? Go ahead, Brian. Yeah, I was just curious, especially on this issue, if you could kind of vocalize some of the equity challenges that we might also be considering, especially on this and incentivation and the requirement program as far as housing affordability goes. Yes, there are lots of approaches to doing that. I think multi-use residential buildings are a great opportunity for cities to step in with funding or to coordinate funding with other levels of government and also to assist communities in accessing the funding that will be available directly to citizens to make these kinds of changes, especially in cases where they may not be very comfortable trying to find that information on their own or applying for that kind of funding. I think a lot of the IRA funding targets these kinds of opportunities, but it may not be easy for the kinds of people who need it most if they're living in really low quality housing to necessarily access that funding easily. So the city can definitely act as a facilitator to help people access that funding and get that work coordinated without an unreasonable amount of impact to someone who's not used to handling that kind of organization. So that would definitely be one of the things that I would I would encourage you to do. There are also other opportunities like using city zoning to require small homes and also to require small homes that are close to essential services to require that essential services and food are available in all neighborhoods in the city and even things like simplifying applications that the city uses or that the city asks people to use to make it as simple as possible for people to apply for funding related to this from the city itself. Those would those would all be ideas. Some of those came from the community and some of those are my own. Is that what you were looking for? Yes. Thank you. Okay. Go ahead. Yeah I had a question of sort of along the same lines and this might be a question for the city but I wondered if you had had any information regarding how many substandard homes there are in Denton now that would could take advantage of the incentivization program for making their homes more energy efficient. That would be a city question. Okay thank you. I don't have those numbers right now but that's something I can work with community development see if they have anything that they could share with us. That'd be great. I'm not sure if that exists but we can ask. Thanks. I have a question too in in regards to kind of affordability. So in other cities that you've worked on have you come across builders or anyone in new construction saying that those requirements are too restrictive to keep the project affordable and if so like how I mean I guess is incentivizing or zoning is that is that the only way is that the way we deal with that or do they eventually come around. I have absolutely run into that. That's a very common problem that developers and builders say it's too expensive to build to these standards and I would say you need to use every all of the tools you just mentioned there. Education is really important because frankly some builders just aren't familiar with standards with standards this high and with the technologies that are used and with how affordable and how simple they are to use how much progress has been made in building to a net zero standard. It's as I mentioned I come from a very northerly climate and I there are net zero homes that I have been in that that are perfectly warm in a minus 40 degrees day and people think that is impossible and it really the building industry has come far enough that those things can be done and the incremental cost is literally only four percent now. So I think education is a big part of it. I think getting those people involved in understanding why this is being done is also important. So really kind of taking the bull by the horns and working with the building industry to have them understand why this work is being done also is among the builder among the builders and having them work with their colleagues to help them understand is very effective. But ultimately you will probably always have some people or some entities that push back and that's why we often recommend that if at all possible you just you make it a rule ultimately. You know you put in place a rule that they have to follow but certainly not without trying to bring them on board as much as you can. Okay thank you. I think we're good thank you. All right transportation our first transportation actions included changes to mode share. So with the number of people working from home rising to 8 percent by 2030 and the number of trips being biked or walked rising from less than 8 percent to 12 percent by 2030 and then to 20 percent by 2050 and simultaneously the number of trips taken in single occupant vehicles would be falling from 86 percent which is what it is now to 72 percent. Then we also included establishing three areas of the city which would be car free so they would become areas where only pedestrians and bikes as well as emergency vehicles would be admitted. Then we also modeled a reduction of the city fleet so a reduction in the number of vehicles and also a conversion of its fleet to zero emissions vehicles over time 60 percent of them being zero emissions by 2030 and then 100 percent by 2050. And these three action or yes these actions together eliminated just under half a million tons of emissions tons spelt the Canadian way there sorry about that. And that worked out to about two percent of total emissions eliminated. And then we also looked at the vehicles themselves. So for those trips that still need to be taken in vehicles we needed to decarbonize the vehicles. So on the same schedule as the Denton fleet we modeled 60 percent of new vehicles that are registered in Denton being zero emissions by 2030 and that would rise to 100 percent by 2050. We do still have vehicles in the fleet in 2050 that are leftovers so we didn't take away all of the existing ICE vehicles or retire them and that would be another option if you have the authority to do that but that is not included here. And then in terms of shared transportation we modeled GoZone vehicles becoming fully electric by 2025, transit by 2030 and the train by 2035. And all of these actions together eliminated a huge amount of emissions so 14.9 megatons which is 57.5 percent of the total emissions that we eliminated. All of the actions all of the transportation actions are net savers of money. Many of them also require relatively small investments and have funding available right now from the IRA or very soon I should say. So if we look at these I'm just going to pull out some of the highlights. Creating car free zones is an excellent example of a relatively low cost action that creates tremendous savings. So the costs are generally limited to staff time, education and signage and barriers. And yet it creates spaces that people enjoy it can generally result in more money being spent at the businesses within those areas than is the case when there is vehicle access. And it definitely provides opportunities for excellent active transportation infrastructure to be built within those areas and then also to expand out into a broader network of active transportation. Decarbonizing and downsizing the city fleet is something I always strongly encourage cities to do and to finish as fast as they can. The savings in maintenance and fuel are tremendous and so the upfront investment usually pays for itself within I would say three to four years. And that includes all of the charging infrastructure as well. And from that point on the vehicle is virtually free. So the operational savings that are freed up from not having to fuel vehicles and only having to service them about what is it? I don't remember what the exact number is now but much less frequently. Those operational savings can be freed up for uses elsewhere in the city making better use of citizens' tax dollars as well. Decarbonizing vehicles is the single most powerful action that we modeled. It made up 49% of the total emission reductions. And decarbonizing commercial vehicles, transit and the train also make significant impacts on Denton's emissions. And those two are ultimately net savings. So why is transportation still a roadblock to reaching your 2030 target? Part of the answer lies in this graph. The number of vehicles that you have in 2019 total is shown by the left bar. And the number of vehicles you have in the low carbon scenario in 2050 is shown by the right bar. So the total number of vehicles still increases by 36%. The number of light trucks increases by 185%. And the total number of vehicles goes from 60,000, just under 60,000 to 116,000 in 2050. So I think it's a question of car culture and also of the infrastructure that's already in place, the distances that have to be traveled and so on. And the question becomes, how do we make an impact on that such that people feel that it's actually an easier alternative to take a different route or a different mode of transport to get from one place to another? The message here, another message here being that even though we've accelerated the uptake of EVs, you still have simply so many vehicles within Denton that the remaining ICE vehicles are producing a tremendous amount of emissions. So if we're going to hit the 2030 target, we really need to shift to more active transportation. And if you can't do that outside of the city and all of your connecting networks to Dallas and so on, it will be important to focus those efforts within the community as much as possible to do what you can with the trips that occur within the boundaries of the city. Challenges for transportation, achieving the 2030 goal needs a big shift away from vehicles overall. And I just want to make a few general points here about how to shift away from vehicles. Denton borders are an extremely large city and much of your transportation network is beyond your control, so even your transit you have very little control over. And in that context, increasing the size of freeways, which I understand is something that's underway for one of your freeways, will make it more difficult even for you to work with this transportation challenge that you have. Freeways, widening them or expanding them always only results in them filling up again almost immediately with more vehicles, making more trips and ultimately not reducing congestion. People respond behaviorally to the information that a freeway is being expanded by saying, oh good, they've made more space, let's take the car and the freeway fills up again. So this is a lesson that's been learned over and over again, but the freeway expansion isn't something that's within Denton's control. So that isn't something that is going to be easy for you to resolve, but it's something that is valuable to be aware of as you're communicating your own feelings about these things to the people who are in control of those decisions. Other challenges include the capital cost of EVs, that's falling and it's forecasted by about 2031, they will be on par with an ICE vehicle, so it will get better. Meaning the lack of control over transit training goes on and the car culture of North America in general makes it a challenge. Opportunities, there is strong community support and desire for expanded active transportation. The fact that your community is made up of a large number of students also means you've lots of people who haven't owned a vehicle or haven't owned one for very long and changing those people's habits is much easier than changing the transportation patterns of people who've driven for decades. Active transportation is inexpensive, it improves equity, it will also give you opportunities to encourage local businesses like Bunch Bikes and also Peterbilt. So from one end to the other, from cargo bikes to large trucks, you have local businesses who can benefit and support this change. Changing city vehicles, electric vehicles, as they're changed is a very powerful way to normalize the idea that electric vehicles are reliable and are being used even by the government. Significant IRA funding is available, especially for chargers, I think. So that's an opportunity to mitigate the costs. And there are a variety of approaches, especially if you want to decrease vehicle trips in the near term, as quickly as you can. One of the best ways of doing that is by introducing restrictions on parking or costs for parking. And we'll talk about that in the next slide here. So approaches, things that the city can require, having groceries and essential services within walking and biking distance in all neighborhoods and making that a requirement in terms of how new neighborhoods are designed. Having parking for bikes that is proportional to the mode share that you want bikes to occupy. So if you want 20% of trips in the city to be taken on bike, you need to provide parking for that many bikes at all of the locations that they're going to be going to. And that should be taken out of the parking that's currently being given to vehicles. That helps make it easier to take a bike than to take a car. Eliminating parking minimums and then a suggestion that has been extremely effective in many places is to charge for all of your public parking. Implement a charge for all of it and increase the cost of it for ICE vehicles. Make it higher initially and over time increase that cost for ICE vehicles. Although there is always opposition to that, there's also always a strong reaction by purchasing an electric vehicle or choosing an alternative mode of transportation. And it's proven very effective in changing the number, lowering the number of vehicles in a city. Incentivized, you can support location efficient mortgages. This might be a matter of advocating for them. So that would be supporting cases in which someone is their home is going to be located close enough to essential services that the bank will allow them to take on a higher mortgage as a proportion of their earnings because they know that less money from their earnings is going to be needed for transportation. So that's something that was raised in our focus groups as an option. I don't know much about them, but I thought I would share it with you. And then the encouragement angle on this is to involve your communities in designing active transportation and alternative uses for parking. So as you shift how you use the space in your city, let the communities be part of that. And one community that has discovered all sorts of creativity by doing this is San Francisco. They oh, I have to double check that might be San Diego. One of the two has been gotten communities very involved in deciding how in within their community that new space will be used as they take away parking. And they've found that it makes the transition away from having that parking much easier. So those are just some ideas. And I'm curious as to whether you have thoughts at this point then. We do have some questions, Brian. Yeah, so I heard you speak for the last like 20 minutes about the no, no, no, no, this was a positive point. Thank you for speaking for the last 20 minutes on the effectiveness of active transit and these other strategies for the emissions reductions targets we're going for. I'm just curious so far as a selling point for especially on the mode shift, how the model returned a 1% emissions reduction for the mode shift category, but a 49% reduction on the I believe it was the conversion over to EVs. And I know again, you spent a lot of time talking about a mode shift response, but it's a selling point for this plan I think is really the emissions reduction and the targets we're trying to hit. But if you could go into details to why that was what the model returned when, you know, we were talking over and over about strategies for incentivizing walking, biking and other active transit forms. Yeah, yeah. So the reality of trips that are taken using active transportation is that they generally walking trips are generally taken between one and two or oh, I have to use miles. Two miles would be the maximum that would be walked in general that you could expect people to walk. And from a cycling perspective, it would be more like about seven miles would be the maximum that you would expect. So trips, although we transitioned a proportion of the total number of trips, it will have been the short trips that are transitioned to active transportation. The long trips are still relying on vehicles. And for that reason, there's a disproportionate disproportionately high amount of emissions in those remaining vehicle trips. So we can move a lot of people to short walking trips, and it doesn't eliminate as much emissions as as the as the vehicles create if you're if you're understanding what I'm saying. So it's unfortunate. And the way that I tried to counteract it is by really emphasizing the other benefits of active transportation. So we understand I've read studies from Australia about investments in active transportation that have shown for every dollar invested in infrastructure, active transportation infrastructure, you'll see at least six dollars in savings in the health care associated with medical conditions that are directly related to inactivity. So if we could start incorporating some of those benefits, I think the it would become an even more compelling picture. I think the the enjoyability of living in a city that is not congested and the air quality that is improved in those kinds of situations are all things that you should draw upon and do research on and integrate into your your own arguments to compel people to help them feel like this is a really positive thing. Mental health, there are all kinds of angles you can take on this that make it so beneficial. And there are also interesting incentive programs. You can look within the states, there are all kinds of programs as well, paying people to bike to work rather than take their vehicles or giving them free ice cream and beer in Italy was one I heard of that I liked, but there there are all kinds of ideas that can just help people get over the reluctance initially and make the most of it. But the emissions picture is still definitely overwhelmed just by the distance that a vehicle will travel. Thank you for getting a granular there. Yeah, I hope maybe in the land use section, we might see a little more on the incentivizing mode shift. But thank you again. Yeah. I do have one question just for clarification on page 30. And you did mention this a little bit, the highways and what we have control over what we don't is 35 included in any of this data. And when you talk about heavy trucks, is that 18 wheelers that are traveling on these highways and freeways through our city or is this just small local streets? So transportation through the city on the highways is included in this modeling, definitely. And freight vehicles, I could get you the exact classes that that refers to, I don't know them offhand. But it would be any vehicle that's being used for transportation of goods rather than passengers. Okay. All right. Is there another one? Yeah, we have one more. I don't see any, unless my eyes are deceiving me, I don't see any colors for light trucks or in the graphs. I see the heavy trucks, but I assume light trucks or pickup trucks and vans, things like that? Yes. And actually, so cars is on the bottom. That's the pale blue. I should use better colors. Light trucks is the bar above that. It's a darker blue. And heavy trucks is invisible because it's a very small number. Oh, okay. I didn't see that. You're a good optometrist. Yeah. But not a good color changer. I still can't see the difference. Yeah, I don't see it either, really. It's not translating very well on the screen. Okay. I will change those colors in the future. Okay. Thank you. Yeah. Thank you. Any other questions on this section? I think we're ready to continue. And should I be speeding up to finish this quickly? I think I've taken more than my time, probably. Yeah, we could go ahead and finish. And then if we have any more questions at the end, we could do that. Okay. All right. I will go back to where I was. So water, solid waste and wastewater is the last category. And actually, I'm going to stop just because you mentioned you wanted to see the land use section, someone who just asked one of the questions. Land use was built into or was included within our description of the buildings. So if you would like more detail on how the land use actions, actually what their emissions impacts were, I could share that with you separately and I'll get that information to Catherine so that it can be shared. I think we have a comment. Was that request? Sorry? Yes, I can make a request for that later. Thank you. Okay. Okay. So the actions we modeled for you for water and waste included decreasing waste per capita by 40% by 2040, and increasing waste diversion to 50% by 2030, and then also reducing potable water, first of all, lost due to leaks. And then secondly, the total amount used per capita. And those four actions together gave you about a megaton of emission reductions, which was about 4% of the total. The cost there, both of these experienced savings, so decreasing waste, the investment was about a half a million and the return is about 2.2 million. And decreasing water consumption, again, the investment is about half a million and the return is about 2.6 million. And you can see that the decreasing waste has a much larger emissions impact than decreasing water consumption. The argument for decreasing water consumption as part of this is probably stronger in the context of preparing for future cases, for future circumstances in which water becomes increasingly scarce and more desirable. And you're going to want to be in a position where you can meet all your needs with the water supply that you have, even as that water supply decreases. So approaches to this, we suggested requiring recycling from all commercial buildings, increasing the costs over time for waste collection as a way of encouraging people to divert rather than just throw their waste away. Incentivization programs that involve taking what we used to think of as waste and turning it into something that's still useful. And an example of this that I've seen in a few places is creating programs that fix up or places that fix up old bikes and they teach people how to take care of them. And then they give them away or they sell them inexpensively to those who don't have other modes of transportation and who can't afford to buy a new bike. And encouraging, I would say, programs that allow people to share things like tools and lawnmowers and any sort of item that you have to purchase that's made abroad and then has to be shipped to you, but you only use it occasionally. As much as those things can be shared is a good thing. It reduces us throwing away these items when we're done with them, but it also reduces what we call consumption-based emissions, which are emissions that are produced when you order something from far away and it has to be made abroad or made a ways away and then transported to you. So it's cutting down on all of that sort of supply chain waste as well. And that was all that I had to share with you. Okay, thank you, we do have a question. Just a question about decreasing water consumption. Would perhaps in terms of new developments requiring or incentivizing xeriscaping and also permeable sidewalks and driveways, would those be viable options as well? Yes, those are both excellent ideas and both of those also increase your resilience to more significant storm events, which are also expected in the future, so it improves your drainage and produces the likelihood of flooding and pooling in neighborhoods. So yeah, it's positive in all ways, so yes, those are good ideas. Thank you. Yeah. Bray, go ahead. For Catherine, are we able to get a copy of this presentation or is it going to be posted on the website? Okay. Thank you. Yeah, great. Just one question, just a clarification, kind of going way back. When we were talking about local solar, was battery storage included in the investment cost? Yes, yeah, it was. Okay, thank you. I think -- is everybody good? Okay. All right, it looks like we're done. Thank you so much. Thank you. I know that was a lot of information to take all at once, so thanks for the questions and your attention. Thank you for your presentation. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Okay. Bye-bye. Bye. Just should leave that on. We will continue and move along to receive a report and hold a discussion regarding the City of Denton's tree canopy goals. I think is that Haywood? Welcome. Thank you, and thanks for the opportunity to come here today and present and talk a little bit about Denton's tree canopy goals. Let me get set here. This is my first time doing a Zoom up here. Okay, so, again, my name is Haywood Morgan. I'm the urban forester for the City of Denton, and today we're going to talk a little bit about Denton's tree canopy goals. Is there a way to make that presentation bigger? Well, you know what, yep, you're right. There. Thank you. You're welcome. Okay, so, as we get started here, we're going to talk first about what is an urban forest. During my time here in Denton, I've heard different thoughts on what an urban forest is, so I thought I'd start off with that, since the tree canopy is what makes up the urban forest. So, I have four pictures here, and I asked the question, "Which is an urban forest?" You know, I've heard some thoughts that, you know, it's this group of trees here, it's this wooded area here, and in actuality, all these trees represent the urban forest. It is the collection of trees within the entire city limits of a city. So, when we talk about tree canopy coverage, we're talking about the layer of branches, trees, stems from trees that cover the ground, so basically everything that produces a shadow on the ground is what we talk about when we talk about tree canopy coverage. So, on the image I have on the screen here, everything that's outlined in the green line here is the tree canopy coverage of this particular area. So, you may be asking yourself, "What is Denton's current urban tree canopy?" So, a couple years ago, we subscribed to a software that allows us to consistently monitor our tree cover, and within the city limits, Denton's tree canopy is 24%. When you look at public properties, that number is 29%. On private properties, it's 23%, within the ETJ1, it's 28%, and within the ETJ2, it's 19%. So, this light of color here, well, you can kind of make out what's the city of Denton's city limits there. So, what's Denton's tree canopy goals? So, these numbers are in our urban forest master plan that was adopted by council back in 2020, and so the numbers here basically corresponded to what was in the development code at that time, and our canopy goals were set and based on if the city was built out as it was zoned at the time, could we reach that canopy goal? So, at that time, the canopy goal was set to reach 40% over the next 20 years. Now, at the time when we did our master plan, our canopy was at 28%, right, at 29%, so we're trying to figure out what's the reasonable goal to set to reach over the time span of the master plan. At that time, we were thinking 40% was a reasonable number to increase. On the image we have here, the parcels where you see the different shades of green are the ones that currently have 40% or more tree canopy. So, how do we increase tree canopy? So, one of the biggest things we can do to increase tree canopy is preserve trees. The current development code requires 20% to 30% is great when we can preserve more. Another method that the city has is we purchase new property for parks, and we always try to target parcels that have higher tree canopy covers existing on that site, and that way we take that out of the circulation for development and possible loss of trees. The other thing we do is plant trees directly through the city's efforts. We plant trees along trails, along streets, boulevard medians, anywhere where we can have a tree planted that will positively, in fact, impact our users and also help to reduce the urban heat island effect by planting near parking lots and roads and what have you, or any impervious surfaces. The other ways trees get planted here in Denton is through single family development. There's requirements within the development code for trees to be planted when new houses are built, new commercial and also new industrial. The other things that we do within the city is tree giveaways through the Red Bud Festival annually in the spring, and in the fall we have our annual community tree give away, where we give away trees to homeowners. And we also in the past have provided saplings through Children's Arbor Day events. And finally we have our tree rebate program, and we revamped that a couple years ago to vary the size of the rebate depending on the size of the tree that someone plants. So for the smaller size trees, the rebate is $50 per tree, and it can be up to $250 per tree for the larger trees, with a max annually for a household of $500. So when we changed up that program, we've been having a strong response to the grants and we've actually been getting some of these funds out, or more of these funds, into the residents of Denton's hands. So how many trees have we planted? So when putting together this presentation, I looked at the last five years of how many trees that we've planted. And as you can see here from 2018 to 2022, we've gone between, you know, on the low side 2,600 trees, and on the high side 3,800, just over 3,800 trees. And that 2,600 I believe was in the time when we were reassessing our use of the tree fund, and we weren't really planting as many trees internally, but we still had our giveaways and there was still new development, and these numbers include plant teams from single family development. So how many trees do we need to plant in 20 years to reach specific canopy goals? So if we want to increase our canopy to 25% or 1% increase, we'd have to plant 5,100 trees per year for the next 20 years. If we bump that up to 30%, it would be 22,000 trees, so just over 22,000 trees per year. To reach 35%, it'd be 39,000 trees per year, and to reach 40%, it would be 56,000 trees per year. So when I ran these numbers in preparing for this presentation, you know, I started rethinking our canopy goals, and one of the things our master plan allows for is a reevaluation of the plan and the goals and objectives on a regular schedule. I think the first one is scheduled for five years after the plan, so it's coming up. So one of the things that we'll do is we'll look at these canopy goals because our tree canopy that we have wasn't as high as what it was when we actually set these goals, and the other thing is when we set those goals, it was considering if all the city was fully developed as it is currently zoned, so knowing that that's a longer-term proposition for the city to be fully built out, we feel that it probably would be appropriate to reassess these goals and make them more in line with where we are and where we think we can be by the end of the master plan. So that's pretty much everything I have on our tree canopy goals on, you know, where we're at, how we got there, and where we are, the trajectory we're heading. Are there any questions that anyone has? Yeah. Ed, go ahead. Well, pardon me. Thanks for the presentation. Will there be any reassessment of the goals in light of the fact that temperatures are getting higher and higher, and that droughts may be getting longer and longer, and how this will affect what trees are used for planting, et cetera? I just heard today that it's gotten so hot in Arizona that even indigenous species like cactus are dying, so I would think knowing that we're set for more hot days and less rain, if that will be considered when you reassess the plan. Yeah, that specifically, we're actually looking at that when we look at our recommended trees for planting and that, so it'll be baked in there, but it won't be, you know, specifically looked at. So, what we're doing with our recommended tree list and what we're actually planting is we're looking at trees, you know, last summer was a really good, I guess, test for us to see what trees are able to take, you know, an extended period of drought with high temperatures combined. And so, when we looked at, you know, what trees survived last year, we're starting to incorporate more of those trees into our planting plans. The other thing we're doing, and this is not just Denton, this is an industry-wide thing, we're looking at trees that are native to Texas, but grow more in the south part of the state where the temperatures tend to get a little bit higher in the drier areas, so we can incorporate those as they become available in the nurseries into our planting scheme. And last spring, for the first time we planted Mexican sycamore, which is a way, you know, almost near the Mexican border tree, drought-tolerant, it should do well here, seems to do okay when we have the colder winters. Another one is Mexican sycamore, Mexican sycamore and Monterey oak, sorry, or Mexican white oak. So those are some of the things we're doing to, you know, get more diversity in what we're actually putting in the ground. >> Great. Thank you. >> Yeah, you're welcome. >> Adam? >> Yeah, thank you for the presentation. So if I heard you right, we're planting 2,000 to 4,000 trees now, and when you run the numbers you need to have 56,000 a year planted, which would be quite a jump. I've always wanted to ask you this question because I drive around town and I say, oh, we could put a tree there, we could put a tree there, and I wonder how many other people are like that, who are constantly thinking about trees, and I wonder if you have ever thought about like a, you know how there's adopt-a-spot, like highway program, like an adopt-a-tree or adopt-an-urban-forest program where you can partner with citizens who are really committed and give them the resources they need if they're willing to put in the volunteer time. Like, I'm just wondering, how can we up the numbers of trees planted by tapping into folks who might be really energized? Is there anything, I mean, we get the trees every year from the giveaway, but are there other things we can do or that other cities are doing to tap into an energetic populace? As far as, I think the biggest thing that I've heard cities do are the tree giveaways, but if there are areas that, and one of our limiting factors where we plant, let me back up a second, is having the availability to irrigate the tree, and so that's always one of the biggest factors when getting a new tree established, but if there are spots where there's maybe one or two or three trees can be planted, generally it's not really cost effective for us to add irrigation if it's not there, so maybe that's something we can look at if there are areas in neighborhoods where local residents can maybe adopt the tree and take care of watering that tree for the first few years until it gets established. We can definitely look into putting something like that together. Yeah, and I'm gonna, if I look down here, I'm not texting, I'm making notes. - All right, Brian? - Yeah, thank you for coming, Heywood, we really appreciate the presentation. - Yes, you're welcome. - I guess, could you vocalize where you see the biggest opportunities for growing our canopy, and specifically when you look at the numbers that our current goal is at, do you see that playing out in public right of ways, or specifically just in residential areas? Where do you see, I guess if you could say what your goal would be, but then maybe there's some limiting factors you could talk about, about what you can actually capable of doing. - So all of the above. So internally, when I look at areas where we can plant trees, I'm looking at areas where we have activity in our parks, to provide shade for individuals using our trails, to plant trees along center boulevard mediums where we can help shade the pavement and reduce the urban heat island effect, just anywhere where we can reasonably plant trees and have them irrigated. I'm open for planting, and the other one is pushing the tree giveaways. One that I think I didn't have on my slide was, we have a neighborhood tree giveaway where we'll actually deliver up to 100 trees in a neighborhood that's in need of trees, and we partner usually with residents in the neighborhood or HOA, and we'll deliver the trees on a Friday, and then they'll do a giveaway on a Saturday. - And I know you've had the Planet Geo software for about a year or two now, I wonder, have you noticed any trends now that you have like a really strong granular detail over all of these different parcels and forested areas, if you've kind of discovered a little bit more than what we knew when we initially adopted the master plan? - The main difference, when we subscribed, we noticed that our canopy wasn't as high as we thought it was, and some of that could be attributed to development, some of it could be attributed to different methodologies and how the tree canopy assessments were performed, the addition of annexed land into the city that may not have been heavily treed. But from year one to year two, and we just recently had an update, I haven't noticed a lot. Tree canopy is one of those things that's something that you see over a larger span of time, which is one of the reasons I wanted to have that software so we can track year to year and kind of keep a little bit closer tabs on what's happening with the tree canopy. - Final question, sorry. I was just curious for the target numbers that you have for your outplanting, is that, so like you're on the net, is that accounting for trees that might get lost due to development or some other disturbance, are you counting that as like a net plus, or is that just the number that you put out and maybe over a five year period it changes? - It's just a number of what we would need to plant. And some of those numbers include development. It doesn't include the commercial or industrial, because I was working with our permitting department to get some of those numbers, and I couldn't really think of a good way to get the numbers for industrial or commercial without it being just tracked as projects go in. With residential, it's a little bit easier, pull the number of permits for single family construction, they require at least two trees, so multiply by two and just add it in. - Cool, thank you so much. - Yes, you're welcome. - I have a few questions. So on number nine slide, do we have the percentage of survival for the new trees that we have there? I know we see what's planted on slide nine. Do we know how many of those trees have survived, like new plantings? I see new development and stuff and driving around, I see these trees struggling, a lot of them have died, especially like university and the media, and I know some had to be replaced, and so do we know of the percentage of those new trees, how many survived? - Yeah, so generally speaking, we have about a 90% survival rate. The kind of hiccup to those sometimes is if we have issues with the irrigation on our public planting and we have a delay with getting that repaired, I know we've had some irrigation issues specifically on university, that's why there's some big gaps right now because I'm waiting until that's repaired and ready to go for a new tree, so hopefully that'll be this fall and we can get those gaps filled in also. - Okay, and I think this may go along with Brian's question, on the last one, how many trees do we need to plant 20 years? I think you may have answered it, but I just want to clarify, so this is just trees planted to reach the canopy goals, does it not account for trees that will be cut down? So are we just assuming that no more trees are cut down to reach this goal as we add more? - Yeah, it's just looking at what's planted because I don't really know how to predict what's going to be developed and how much we're going to lose. - So on this slide, what we're looking at to reach our goal means that no more trees are to be cut down from this point forward and we need to add this many more trees per year to reach this goal. - And it would also include trees that are being planted because of new development. So it was looking at when the goals were set in the master plan, our consultant, they looked at the percentage required for single family, commercial and industrial, if that property was developed out as it's zoned. So it didn't really look at what's being lost, but it looks at what's the potential to be planted with those developed properties. - Okay, and along the lines of planting new trees, this is my last one, because we just had a long presentation about our climate plan and water is a big section. And so as you mentioned earlier, irrigation on new trees is a big deal, right? It needs a lot of water. So are we looking at that plan? Are we communicating with our new plan that's coming up as far as what kind of water we need for the survival of these trees? - We hadn't looked at it specifically because this was my first time knowing that the plan was happening. But what we do is we always try to plant and advocate trees that are lower water use trees. That's our main avenue and as far as the irrigation that goes on it, we use bubbler so if there's not water spraying, it's more directly applied to the tree. And we generally are watering in the overnight hours or evening hours, so we have less evaporation of water. - And as far as the plan goes on, you just mentioned heat islands, and then we need more protection for biking, is that something when you are looking to plant trees that you keep into account, like walking or biking to make sure things are shaded, are you looking for areas like that as well? - Yes, anywhere where there is an impervious surface, whether it's some of our larger trails through the parks that are paved or center mediums where cars travel or if there's... We don't really plant between the curb and sidewalk because right now that's the homeowner's domain, but those areas are required for new development for trees to be planted. But anywhere where we can add a little bit more shade for pedestrians, we target those areas. - Okay. I think... Ed, do you have one more question? Thank you. - Yes, you're welcome. - Yeah, you'll have to excuse me if this question is really stupid, but I'm going to ask it anyway. Huh? - Thank you. - I look at the 25%, 30% canopy and all that, and what is 100% tree canopy? - 100% tree canopy means there's no development. There's no roads, there's no houses, it's just undeveloped land, probably in a forest where everything is covered. - Okay. - I mean, it'd be hard to get 100% covered just because of your building footprint and... - Oh, sure. - I just was trying to think of it in terms relative to the percentages, that's all. - Yeah. - Yeah. - Yeah. - Okay. Thank you. - You're welcome. - Okay. I think we're good. - All right. Thank you. - Thank you so much. - You're welcome. - I appreciate your presentation. - Thanks, Edwin. - All right. We will move on to item E. I think we are. And that is Receive a Report, Hold a Discussion, and Give Staff Feedback Regarding Updates to the Greensense Energy Efficiency Program. - And J.T. is going to link to present this one. We just have a first draft of what the Greensense Efficiency rebates could look like under new funding next year. - Okay. - All right. Give me just one second, and we will get started. Okay, I think that looks good. All right. So good afternoon, committee members, James Douglas, and the Conservation Programs Coordinator. Again, here to talk about a proposal for the Greensense Energy Efficiency Incentives as a part of a possible program update. There we go. So a pretty simple presentation today, so we're going to go over some background about the incentive program itself. We'll talk about the current program performance through the most recent fiscal year, specifically fiscal year '22. We'll talk about those proposed program changes, and then we will go over the next steps for possible implementation. So just a little bit more about Greensense, so the program began in 2009, and as the years go on, we've had sort of different funding levels, and of course, technology changes over that time, so updates to the program are made. Our current program incentive levels and current program has been in place since fiscal year 2018. The energy efficiency, of course, is largely focused on heating and cooling elements such as HVAC, insulation, smart thermostats, things of that nature that work on heating and specifically cooling. We make up about 55 percent or more of energy bills and also are targeted for different things on demand management, so when we're talking about cooling specifically, that's going to have a large impact there as well. The program is administered by Environmental Services and Sustainability, and then, of course, the funding comes through DME, so all of the energy efficiency rebates come through our office. A little bit about the current program, and you can see the current funding levels that are there, and when we talk about the proposed funding levels, you do have a comparison in your backup as well for reference. So the current annual funding levels are at $250,000 annually. I did want to mention that we recently launched into our online application. You can still do a paper application, but we've seen a really good portion of the rebates coming through on that online application, and that started in January 2023. Our average application review time is about 3.7 days with that new online application. There's of course going to be some where there's some back and forth if we need to track down some additional information to process the rebate, but that 3.7 is a good average. And then, as I said, you can see the current rebates that are being offered there. The one that is not included but is included in your backup is also that electric vehicle rebate at $300 currently. Can I ask a quick question? Sure. At the top there under the equipment, you have the two HVAC categories. Can they be either gas, natural gas, or electric? That's correct, yes. Whereas the heat pump is electric? Correct. All right. I'd like at some point to discuss perhaps a different pricing or incentive offering, whether it's electric or gas. That is listed in the current proposal. Okay. Great. Thank you. Mm-hmm. So, talking a little bit about the current performance of the program and why we're proposing some of these changes, so I will point out that on the far left-hand side here you can see fiscal year 2017. It's in a different color because that was under a slightly different pricing than we currently have. So those rebates were slightly higher on all of the different elements. So the graph here you can see a percentage of cost funded by fiscal year. So this is how much on average was the rebate accounting for the total cost of the equipment that it was installed. Again, you can kind of take out 2017 from that picture, but we see it was a little bit higher then. We see a steady decrease over time from 2018 to 2022, ending in 2022 with only about 4% of the total cost of the equipment being covered by the rebate program. Again, the pricing for the rebates did not change from 2018 to 2022. So we can assume there that the cost of installing this equipment has gone up over time. Related to that, we have the number of rebates that are being processed by fiscal year. Again, you can see 2017 there in red with the different funding structure. Again, we see that as a general decrease over time there with a slight spike in 2021, possibly due to increased stimulus funding, things like of that nature. But in 2022, we did see our lowest number of rebates processed there at 327. So that brings us to some of the proposed changes. So the potential annual budget increase is between $500,000 and a million dollars. Just for a bit of reference for the proposed rebates that you see in the backup. So for the items that are currently in the program, if we use that proposed funding, we would see an 18% coverage of the total cost for the equipment as compared to the 4% that was covered under the current rebate dollar amounts. So we did, along with our analysis of the current program, we included essentially where are we getting the most bang for our buck among the current rebates and priority was given to increasing those amongst the current offerings. We also have new offerings that are included in the proposal, and you can see those there. Some examples of those are something like an HVAC tuneup giving about 50% back for those if they're conducted annually. Electric bikes or e-bikes are included in our current proposal as well. Weatherization kits and also sort of outlining that dedicated funding for the fan giveaway, which we have done for the last two summers. Those are important as well because those help out DME customers that are renters, where a large portion of the program currently is for single-family homeowners. A little bit more of that bang for the buck analysis there. So you can see the three most sort of cost-effective ones that we have are insulation, HVAC, and solar screens. And when you look at the proposal, that is where we have a large portion of the increases. What you're seeing here is a cost per KWH or cost per consumption. Keep in mind that this is for Denton's investment, and that this is only for the first 12 months. So it is just a relative comparison. This does not take into account the entire lifetime of the equipment, which can vary. So some next steps. So we'll continue to follow the budget discussions that are occurring at the City Council. We'll prepare an updated Greensense incentive manual. So this is the document that oversees sort of the implementation of the program and really kind of bakes in those different rebate amounts. So along with this proposal, we'll be including an updated version of that document. So we'll continue to update and implement the online application platform, both for ease of use and for staff time savings, which will help us with this sort of increased implementation of this program. And we'll still offer the paper copy version for any of those folks that might need that. As we do currently, we'll continue to track the effectiveness, especially of these new programs. We'll see where the dollars are sort of being best spent, which of these programs are most popular and most effective, and we can continue to make changes sort of as we see those increased opportunities there. And with that, I will take any questions on the proposal. Adam? Yeah, thanks, J.T. Not so much a question on the proposal. Just to understand the program in general, this -- is this on an ongoing, like, rolling basis throughout the year, and are you always paying out these rebates, or is there a limit that you would reach such that there's no more money in the pot, basically? Yes. Right now, it's that $250,000 annual allocation. I will say the funding has not run out for this particular program. The last time the energy efficiency funding ran out was in that 2017 fiscal year, when we did have those higher dollar amounts. That's part of the reason that it was lowered, was essentially to spread it out a little bit more evenly. And so with the sort of percentage of cost cover dropping a little bit lower, it's something that we've been looking to put more money towards. So again, once that pot of money, it essentially opens October 1, and it would be first come, first serve on the rebates there. Go ahead, Brian. Really excited to see eBikes in that program. I know we've talked about that in previous meetings, but thank you, thank you for putting it in the program. And I know we also just spent quite a lot of time talking about the kind of investments we were hoping to make to transition ourselves over the next 10, 15 years. And so I sincerely hope you made a really compelling and effective argument to the success of this program. And I really hope that you were able to get the funding from council to get a better return on this program. So congratulations and good luck. Ed, go ahead. Just, yeah, there you go. Thanks for the presentation. Of course. I understand the DME is conducting a value of solar study, is that correct? Yes. Yeah. And there's also, they're returning to and updating the Denton renewable resources plan, I believe. Correct. So those are not complete as far as I know. So those are pretty important things on the horizon. They could possibly have an effect on the Greensense program. So I just want to make sure that we're not jumping the gun here until we get those programs in and see what the future from DME's perspective looks like with this. I think the city's perspective here is fine, but I don't know what, I don't know what's, this just seems to me there's some big question marks. Catherine, for clarification, is this for the budget coming up? Is this in September? Yes. Yeah. Okay. Yes. So this will start October 1 of 2023 if the funding is available. We have wanted to make changes. We've seen those rebate values decreasing over time, and we've wanted to make changes to it for a couple of years, and we're lagging. We need to go ahead and update it. And as they work through their plans, we can come back and look at the Greensense program again. It's authorized and funded every October 1, so it's not for the end of time. We can come back and relook at it. Okay. Thank you. Is that it? Did you have? I think that's it. Okay. Oh, yeah. Thank you. I have a couple, just because we saw the presentation before, and there were a couple of things that were kind of mentioned in there. And so in regards to heat pumps, is there something we can do on education for those? It's not well talked about or well known, and in the funding that you had and the amounts that you had, is that enough to meet some of the reduction requirements that are in that plan? It will certainly make a dent, especially when we talk about sort of those percentage retrofit goals. And then as far as the communication goes, absolutely. And I think that goes to the presentation before as well about speaking of some of the benefits of doing that. We actually had a meeting this week with DME's communication folks, and so we'll be working with them really closely to really revamp that, and specifically, as far as we're concerned, getting the word about this program and the benefits of this program out there to both developers, folks that install this equipment, and then the homeowners as well. Commercial. Okay. So just kind of to speak to that as well, I believe the question was asked about the number of structures that need to be retrofitted, and if we have that as we start along with this process of retrofitting, that data going hand in hand, like the percentages being reduced, that would be very helpful to have as we continue to fund. And then, so as we've seen, like retrofit of old buildings, it's not optional at this point if we want to continue to meet those goals to stop the leakage. But they did mention IRA as a funding in there, and so that's probably not a conversation for this presentation, but I'm just curious if that funding can go hand in hand with Greensense or not. I think we've talked a lot about sort of getting the most bang for the buck with all programs that are out there. I think with Denton, of course, the utilities being kind of that advantage that we do have. Having sort of that local piece to this program, I think, is really important, and then having folks being able to speak directly to us as city staff and do that, and I think Catherine will speak to the other elements of that. Just kind of building off of what Maura said, we can create those connections to some of the IRA funding. A new program was just announced yesterday that's specifically targeted at the weatherization and energy efficiency improvements, and that money's going to go to the state, so we're just going to have to watch that closely and see how we can connect our residents with that funding. But we're on top of those as much as we can be. Okay. Thank you. Everybody good? Okay. All right. I think we're good. Thank you so much. I guess, are you looking for anything from this committee as far as that? Like thumbs up, we're good to go, or anything else? What's that? Oh, yeah. If there's anything that you feel that we missed as a part of the program with some of the additions or changes or anything like that. Brian, go ahead. Just kind of a thought, and I'm sure this will play out over the next year or so, but should the climate action plan be adopted, do you see a lot of those incentive structures being built into this kind of existing program, or potentially a new avenue for those sorts of incentives? As it relates to energy efficiency specifically? Right, right. Specifically with the building retrofitting. Right. I think there's a lot of opportunities there, especially with some of the tracking that goes into the new online form that we have as well. I think there's a real opportunity to see the progress of this program as it relates specifically to that one goal in particular, but into the cap as a whole. Cool. Thank you. Thanks. Okay. Thank you. Yeah. I think we're good. Thanks. Okay. All right. We will continue with staff reports. Catherine? Is your microphone on? We just have the PACE update. I wanted to go ahead and give you some background on the Denton County PACE and give you those two documents that are linked there. I did talk to one of their principals, and they would like to come do a presentation about what they do to the committee, so we'll set that up for later in the year, but I want to give you a primer so you can think of any questions that you might have. Thank you for that. I'm looking forward to that presentation. Adam? Of course. Yeah. I opened it, and I decided that was too much reading for me to do right now. Can you just very quickly remind us what PACE is, so we can think about it? It's the Property Assessed Clean Energy Program, where you can get a loan. It's tied to an assessment in your property tax, and get funding to do your energy efficiency or water efficiency upgrades on an existing commercial structure. It's not for residential right now. It's just for commercial. Okay. I guess Matrix, Ed has a question or a comment. I have a couple of things for the Matrix. I wanted to ask, a while back, actually last year, I asked about the carbon sequestration potential of current tree canopy, and I didn't know if that could have been answered today or what, because I was just confused, because under status it said presentation July 2023. Let me get back to you on that, because I don't think I can pull Haywood back up here. Okay. I'll get back to you on that. All right. One other thing, if I may, for the Matrix, I saw where San Antonio has established a pilot program called a Cool Pavement Program, and I looked it up on EPA website, and it's a street paving process that really remarkably reduces heat island problems, and I wanted to know if or look into whether or not the city has looked into that sort of pavement program. Okay. We can add that. Thank you. Adam, Matrix? Yeah. Just to, it says transportation is slated for August of '23. I'm just wondering if that is indeed what we're looking at, maybe next month, or? Cool. I'm working with development services. I think we're going to be able to get them here in August. Great. Thank you. Brian? Matrix? Yeah. Go ahead. Just to reiterate, get on the record. Just to reiterate, asking for that land use planning component, and the details of that that Mara said that she would provide to you, if that could be passed down to us as well. That would be super. Yes. You can do that. Okay. I would like to add to the Matrix a couple of items, and I don't know if it's too premature to ask for these things because we just saw them today in the presentation, but they were things that I thought we could go ahead and start talking about in this committee, and that would be three car-free areas, maybe as they might be proposed, and then some incentives or ideas for City of Denton employees to bike or walk to work, even what that looks like. Then the last thing is, for rebates, I know that ... I don't think that this is on there already, but for landscape, to help ... I know that there's a lot of people who want to remove their lawn, but the investment of what to replace it with or what to do after that is a lot, and so they're just kind of stuck there with half grass and half ... You know what I mean? Me being one of them, and just to have something there for people to look at, "Okay, so if I remove my lawn, is there a rebate or some kind of incentive or something that's going to help encourage residents to put in low-water landscape or drought-tolerant plants or rocks, maybe some not-even landscapes, so just if that's an option?" I know Stephen mentioned that when he talked about the one-water plan. We can look at ideas for the interim until that plan's ready. Okay. All right. Thanks. Thanks. All right. I think we're on to concluding items. Does anybody have any announcements or anything for concluding items? Any events? Anything? No? All right. Well then, we will conclude at three ... Let me get this correct, 3/11. Thank you very much, everybody.