1 00:00:00,000 --> 00:00:13,160 Okay, good afternoon. This is the October 24th, 2025 meeting of the Sustainability Framework 2 00:00:13,160 --> 00:00:18,600 Advisory Committee. We have a quorum today. It's one o'clock, so we will begin. And our 3 00:00:18,600 --> 00:00:29,040 first item for individual consideration is approval of September 26, 2025 minutes. Does 4 00:00:29,040 --> 00:00:37,080 anyone wish to approve or disapprove? I move to approve. Mr. Richter moves to approve. 5 00:00:37,080 --> 00:00:45,720 Do we have a second? I second. Mr. Helms? All in favor? Aye. All opposed? All right. 6 00:00:45,720 --> 00:00:52,200 The minutes of September have been approved. Our second item is to receive a report, hold 7 00:00:52,200 --> 00:00:59,040 a discussion, and give staff direction regarding City Council requests to review a two-minute 8 00:00:59,040 --> 00:01:08,000 pitch for rooftop solar and rooftop garden/wall garden retrofits for existing city facilities. 9 00:01:08,000 --> 00:01:13,360 We have Tom Gremer with us today. Good afternoon. Tom Gremer, Director of Facilities and Fleet 10 00:01:13,360 --> 00:01:22,320 Services for the City of Denver. Background, on November 25, 2024, Councilmember Beck submitted 11 00:01:22,320 --> 00:01:24,800 a two-minute pitch to explore the installation of rooftop and wall gardens and solar panels 12 00:01:24,800 --> 00:01:30,040 with batteries on city buildings. On December 3, 2024, City Council approved consensus for 13 00:01:30,040 --> 00:01:34,640 staff to publish an informal staff report addressing the feasibility of the pitch. On 14 00:01:34,640 --> 00:01:41,000 January 24, 2025, an ISR was published in the fire group. On August 7, 2025, the General 15 00:01:41,000 --> 00:01:44,760 Advisory Committee recommended setting the pitch to the Sustainability Framework Advisory 16 00:01:44,760 --> 00:01:49,640 Committee. We're here. Currently, the City of Denver facilities, that facilities management 17 00:01:49,640 --> 00:01:55,880 operates, is 206 buildings. We conducted a facilities condition assessment in 2020-2021, 18 00:01:55,880 --> 00:02:00,480 which identified the need for maintenance and repairs of our current facilities, what 19 00:02:00,480 --> 00:02:03,800 we call deferred maintenance, those items that were not funded throughout the years 20 00:02:03,800 --> 00:02:07,600 that they needed to be repaired, and we put them into deferred status, which then required 21 00:02:07,600 --> 00:02:16,000 us to fund these in a future date. Currently, because of the City's budgeting and the amount 22 00:02:16,000 --> 00:02:19,240 of work that needs to be completed, we've had to push some of these deferred maintenance 23 00:02:19,240 --> 00:02:26,920 items forward and/or delay them to meet the City's financial expectations. Considerations 24 00:02:26,920 --> 00:02:30,560 for the new buildings is where we're going to get our ROI on the rooftops and solar and 25 00:02:30,560 --> 00:02:36,240 wall gardens. When considering our new construction, the addition of the rooftop and wall gardens 26 00:02:36,240 --> 00:02:42,720 has an estimated $143, $250 per square foot, for that building that we're working on. A 27 00:02:42,720 --> 00:02:48,120 new building installation for solar and batteries will also be considered in the new capital 28 00:02:48,120 --> 00:02:54,400 planning for the facility of construction. Our consideration for our existing buildings, 29 00:02:54,400 --> 00:02:59,120 we have 28 of the City's 206 facilities that have roof structures potentially suitable for 30 00:02:59,120 --> 00:03:03,600 our rooftop gardens. What that means is those are the parapet type of roofs, rather than 31 00:03:03,600 --> 00:03:08,200 a gable or pitch style roof. So there would still be engineering considerations to look 32 00:03:08,200 --> 00:03:13,720 at these parapet type roofs to see if they're load bearing enough for that type of installation. 33 00:03:13,720 --> 00:03:17,440 Any engineering survey would be required before we add any additional weight or we'd even 34 00:03:17,440 --> 00:03:22,400 be able to consider installing additional equipment on top of the roofs. For an example, 35 00:03:22,400 --> 00:03:27,640 even replacing an HVAC unit or adding an additional HVAC unit would require a very similar study 36 00:03:27,640 --> 00:03:31,600 to ensure that the rooftop could support the additional weight and load for that type of 37 00:03:31,600 --> 00:03:36,560 roof. The cost for engineering assessments traditionally range between $50,000 and $200,000 38 00:03:36,560 --> 00:03:42,360 for each building or project that we're assessing for that type of roof. For solar battery installations, 39 00:03:42,360 --> 00:03:47,880 the cost for these improvements is estimated to be between $100,000 and $1.8 million, depending 40 00:03:47,880 --> 00:03:53,360 on the facility type of the energy usage that we expect out of it. The estimate annual energy 41 00:03:53,360 --> 00:03:59,680 cost savings from our solar panels are variable, but we range anywhere from $2,500 to $25,000 42 00:03:59,680 --> 00:04:03,760 for each facility based on the current energy consumption that we pulled from our historical 43 00:04:03,760 --> 00:04:12,680 reports. Through our next steps for the committee to consider is option one, identify and evaluate 44 00:04:12,680 --> 00:04:16,960 our existing buildings for rooftop gardens and recommend to city council for inclusion 45 00:04:16,960 --> 00:04:22,960 in our FY26/27 city budget. Option two would be to identify and evaluate our existing city 46 00:04:22,960 --> 00:04:27,160 buildings for solar panels with or without battery storage and recommend that for inclusion 47 00:04:27,160 --> 00:04:31,840 in the same budget period. Option three would be to consider inclusion of a rooftop or wall 48 00:04:31,840 --> 00:04:37,520 gardens on all of our new construction moving forward when applicable. And then option four, 49 00:04:37,520 --> 00:04:41,720 consider inclusion of solar panels with or without our battery storage and our new construction 50 00:04:41,720 --> 00:04:50,080 as well. And then finally option five would be to not recommend moving forward with suspension. 51 00:04:50,080 --> 00:04:54,800 Our recommendation for current projects, we do not have sufficient funding to consider 52 00:04:54,800 --> 00:04:58,640 our rooftop and wall gardens as well as solar battery installation on our existing city 53 00:04:58,640 --> 00:05:03,640 facilities. However, we will consider these options in design and the planning phases 54 00:05:03,640 --> 00:05:07,680 of all new construction projects when applicable for our vertical construction where these 55 00:05:07,680 --> 00:05:11,400 can be integrated at the beginning of the construction project and built to purpose 56 00:05:11,400 --> 00:05:28,400 to be more efficient throughout the life of that building. Any questions? Everyone? Yes. 57 00:05:28,400 --> 00:05:36,800 Alright so, is it my understanding that the current budget is 25 million that were moved 58 00:05:36,800 --> 00:05:45,040 from fiscal year 20 to 23 to 25, 26? Yes there was a capital plan for deferred maintenance 59 00:05:45,040 --> 00:05:49,040 that was 30 million dollars over a three or four year period to handle the deferred maintenance 60 00:05:49,040 --> 00:05:53,320 items. Throughout the years of course, budget constraints will limit that and so far we've 61 00:05:53,320 --> 00:05:58,200 been investing almost 25 million dollars into our aging infrastructure just to get them 62 00:05:58,200 --> 00:06:06,880 from the deferred status to a current maintenance status. In your report here, you cite in different 63 00:06:06,880 --> 00:06:15,040 paragraphs, currently significant number of, significant number of, so do you have a number, 64 00:06:15,040 --> 00:06:23,360 for example, how many buildings, city buildings continue to operate beyond their expected 65 00:06:23,360 --> 00:06:28,160 lifespan? Of course, most of our city facilities from when they were originally built, are 66 00:06:28,160 --> 00:06:32,160 operating past their existing life cycle. A building traditionally is meant for 30 to 67 00:06:32,160 --> 00:06:36,720 50 years of continuous operation before a major renovation or capital investment is 68 00:06:36,720 --> 00:06:41,240 needed into the infrastructure. So right now, a lot of our buildings, 150 percent, are at 69 00:06:41,240 --> 00:06:45,840 that 30 to 50 year mark. However, we continue to invest money into them. Okay, how many 70 00:06:45,840 --> 00:06:50,920 buildings? I do not have that number currently, but I'm happy to provide that. Okay, how many 71 00:06:50,920 --> 00:06:57,160 buildings lack the necessary electrical infrastructure to support renewable energy? Currently all 72 00:06:57,160 --> 00:07:01,640 buildings, they were not built for the intended purpose of solar, so any additional solar 73 00:07:01,640 --> 00:07:07,400 would require electrical infrastructure. So that means all the city buildings? Correct. 74 00:07:07,400 --> 00:07:19,000 206? Correct. Okay, so do we have historical buildings in the city buildings? We do, there 75 00:07:19,000 --> 00:07:24,360 are some city buildings that are designated as so. All right, so how about working on 76 00:07:24,360 --> 00:07:31,600 those and install the rooftop and gardens? Have you thought about that? Of course, and 77 00:07:31,600 --> 00:07:35,680 if it's designated as a historical landmark, it would be very difficult to change the external 78 00:07:35,680 --> 00:07:41,200 appearance of that facility to incorporate solar or some other options. And then traditionally 79 00:07:41,200 --> 00:07:46,360 in very aged buildings, when you begin updating infrastructure, the rule is, if you touch 80 00:07:46,360 --> 00:07:51,320 it, you have to repair it. So as we dig into the buildings, if we remove items that are 81 00:07:51,320 --> 00:07:56,240 already, say, grandfathered into how it was built, we also break into having to upgrade 82 00:07:56,240 --> 00:08:00,640 all that additional infrastructure as well. Let alone if that facility can even support 83 00:08:00,640 --> 00:08:06,360 the size, the space, the well-bearing needs for the solar orbit operations. All right, 84 00:08:06,360 --> 00:08:17,120 also in your report, you mentioned that the estimated annual energy cost savings from 85 00:08:17,120 --> 00:08:25,000 the solar panels is about $2,500 to $25,000, depending on the consumption. Did you take 86 00:08:25,000 --> 00:08:33,480 into consideration the fact that installing the rooftops, gardens, or the walled gardens, 87 00:08:33,480 --> 00:08:40,920 they can increase the energy efficiency of those buildings? Yes, we did consider that. 88 00:08:40,920 --> 00:08:45,240 Through our analysis, we determined that there might be a very hard factor of the facility, 89 00:08:45,240 --> 00:08:51,520 which would require less DU cycles on HVAC units. And of course, the solar panels. There 90 00:08:51,520 --> 00:08:56,640 was a matrix of, if you wanted to do the building in full solar panels, you would need, say, 91 00:08:56,640 --> 00:09:02,520 100,000 square feet of space. But the building is only 20,000 square feet of rooftop accessibility. 92 00:09:02,520 --> 00:09:07,080 So to invest the most amount of solar panels to get the best return on that investment 93 00:09:07,080 --> 00:09:12,040 was our calculation. Of course, some facilities won't be able to support a full solar load 94 00:09:12,040 --> 00:09:16,720 unless there's a solar farm next to it, or that rooftop could support it. So it's a very 95 00:09:16,720 --> 00:09:23,640 fluid matrix. All right. And one more question, sorry. This may be a silly question, but I 96 00:09:23,640 --> 00:09:31,640 don't know the answer, and I'm expecting you to explain that to me. How do we increase 97 00:09:31,640 --> 00:09:38,440 the funding for this project? Of course. So this would have to go through the City Council's 98 00:09:38,440 --> 00:09:43,240 budget presentation. We would identify potentially the best buildings for this, for existing 99 00:09:43,240 --> 00:09:47,640 facilities, and then provide an ROI and an expectation of the cost. And then it would 100 00:09:47,640 --> 00:09:52,040 be up to the finance team and the city council to determine this within the priority of the budget. 101 00:09:52,040 --> 00:09:56,840 However, again, the ROI on this would not be just the solar and the rooftop garden. It 102 00:09:56,840 --> 00:10:01,040 would be the infrastructure for the existing facility. Whereas if you took that money and 103 00:10:01,040 --> 00:10:05,040 utilized that for new construction, you could get more bang for your buck when building 104 00:10:05,040 --> 00:10:13,040 it from the onset, rather than trying to renovate the existing facilities. So do you plan to 105 00:10:13,040 --> 00:10:19,040 demolish some of the old buildings, city buildings? Right now, no. No? With our growth expectations, 106 00:10:19,040 --> 00:10:23,040 we're filling our buildings and having to build new ones. So we wouldn't remove current 107 00:10:23,040 --> 00:10:27,040 occupied facilities unless we were building facilities that could support the growth plus 108 00:10:27,040 --> 00:10:32,040 existing occupancy. Are there plans to build new facilities? There are plans to build new 109 00:10:32,040 --> 00:10:37,040 facilities to the capital planning. There's a few considerations of budgeting moving forward, 110 00:10:37,040 --> 00:10:42,040 but we do provide our need to the capital team and the city on our occupancy expectations 111 00:10:42,040 --> 00:10:49,040 over the next 20 years. How many buildings and do you plan to have the rooftops and the gardens? 112 00:10:49,040 --> 00:10:54,040 Of course. So the next, currently they're building fire stations five and six, and that 113 00:10:54,040 --> 00:10:59,040 was before we utilized and we considered rooftop solar. Moving forward, say the new service 114 00:10:59,040 --> 00:11:03,040 center or any other new buildings that are proposed, during the design phase, this will 115 00:11:03,040 --> 00:11:08,040 be a requirement for the architect to build into the specifications so we can assess the 116 00:11:08,040 --> 00:11:16,040 cost and the viability of adding this at that time. Okay. Thank you. Any others? Comments? 117 00:11:16,040 --> 00:11:21,040 Questions? Is the idea for those solar installations, like say the fire station, is it to support 118 00:11:21,040 --> 00:11:27,040 specifically that building or is it just a tie-in? Well, of course, with any solar, if 119 00:11:27,040 --> 00:11:32,040 you are generating more power than your building's using, you would push it back to the grid. 120 00:11:32,040 --> 00:11:36,040 What we really run into is that our commercial properties, which essentially is everything 121 00:11:36,040 --> 00:11:42,040 the city owns, we generate more consumption than the space available for solar. So very 122 00:11:42,040 --> 00:11:47,040 rarely would you get 100% off the grid solar or putting it back on the grid in that renewable 123 00:11:47,040 --> 00:11:54,040 energy. We would just be able to reduce the grid burden. That would be the best case scenario. 124 00:11:54,040 --> 00:12:01,040 Yeah. I think I have two questions. One's related to what you were asking, is when you've 125 00:12:01,040 --> 00:12:06,040 worded this, current projects do not have sufficient funding. And I'm not understanding, 126 00:12:06,040 --> 00:12:11,040 wasn't the two-minute pitch partially about increasing the funding so that there would 127 00:12:11,040 --> 00:12:18,040 be more funding for this? Isn't that the ask? I believe the ask is, are there buildings 128 00:12:18,040 --> 00:12:24,040 capable of and should we increase funding to assess it and potentially move forward? 129 00:12:24,040 --> 00:12:28,040 Right. Should we increase funding for it? That's why I'm confused about the way this 130 00:12:28,040 --> 00:12:33,040 is worded because I think it's obvious there's not sufficient funding now. I thought the 131 00:12:33,040 --> 00:12:38,040 ask was, should we get more funding for this? Yeah, I believe that's what Council Member 132 00:12:38,040 --> 00:12:43,040 Speck's intent is to invest some sort of funding into looking at the buildings, the engineering 133 00:12:43,040 --> 00:12:49,040 assessments, and the potential of making this happen. And so your recommendation, what if 134 00:12:49,040 --> 00:12:57,040 you could go back a slide to the options? Your recommendation would be through three 135 00:12:57,040 --> 00:13:03,040 and four, I guess? Just the new construction? Yes, the new construction of all the bond 136 00:13:03,040 --> 00:13:06,040 projects that we've established and things that are being in the design phase currently, 137 00:13:06,040 --> 00:13:12,040 adding that requirement to the specifications package that the architect will build out 138 00:13:12,040 --> 00:13:16,040 of any facilities moving forward would be considered for this type of project. And that's 139 00:13:16,040 --> 00:13:24,040 for essentially cost effectiveness and ROI reasons that these retrofits are just cost 140 00:13:24,040 --> 00:13:31,040 prohibitive, you think, essentially? If I could jump in here briefly to Adam's question, 141 00:13:31,040 --> 00:13:35,040 you foresee option three and four coming out of capital improvements planning, or you see 142 00:13:35,040 --> 00:13:44,040 it as a supplemental to the existing 2019-2014 bond program? It would definitely not be all 143 00:13:44,040 --> 00:13:49,040 the '23 bond program. It would be all the projects moving forward. Now I would say that 144 00:13:49,040 --> 00:13:52,040 if there's an opportunity where we have not started the design phase of some of these 145 00:13:52,040 --> 00:13:58,040 projects, we would ask the architect to grab a proposal on this and see if it could fit 146 00:13:58,040 --> 00:14:02,040 in the current budget. But then, of course, if we can't, just like any other additions 147 00:14:02,040 --> 00:14:06,040 in the architectural drawings, we would have to start scaling the proposal to meet those 148 00:14:06,040 --> 00:14:11,040 budgeting expectations. So projected larger facilities like the new South Branch Library, 149 00:14:11,040 --> 00:14:16,040 the new senior center, both the fire stations you mentioned, the Lynn-McMahon project, all 150 00:14:16,040 --> 00:14:20,040 of the '23 bond program, none of those projects are considering eligible for options three 151 00:14:20,040 --> 00:14:24,040 and four? I would say it's not. It wouldn't be eligible. It would definitely be a conversation 152 00:14:24,040 --> 00:14:28,040 with the architect. If we find that costs are driving down, where we budget our expected 153 00:14:28,040 --> 00:14:33,040 buildings, and we have contingency or other opportunities, then we can do it. I think 154 00:14:33,040 --> 00:14:38,040 it's worth putting in the bid drawings and seeing what that ROI is. However, some of 155 00:14:38,040 --> 00:14:42,040 the buildings like fire station five or six may be already at the 100% design review or 156 00:14:42,040 --> 00:14:46,040 groundbreaking. So to go back and change all the architectural information or change the 157 00:14:46,040 --> 00:14:50,040 specifications over the increased costs wouldn't be appropriate. So it's really about where 158 00:14:50,040 --> 00:14:56,040 the buildings are in their design phase and the future moving forward. So I know one of 159 00:14:56,040 --> 00:15:02,040 the asks from staff on the '23 bond program was a large facility or potentially an upgrade 160 00:15:02,040 --> 00:15:07,040 to this existing facility for additional staff offices, which would be a significant build. 161 00:15:07,040 --> 00:15:12,040 You're saying that options three and four, it would be a new policy for your initial 162 00:15:12,040 --> 00:15:17,040 bids for that architectural design to include these two features or at least one of the 163 00:15:17,040 --> 00:15:20,040 above? That is correct. Facilities management provides standard specifications of what we 164 00:15:20,040 --> 00:15:26,040 expect to see in the first design renderings, where that would be the certain type of HVAC 165 00:15:26,040 --> 00:15:30,040 that we use, the type of doors, our hardware, our plumbing expectations. This we put in 166 00:15:30,040 --> 00:15:35,040 that original bid where we would like to see rooftop garden options, solar options, what 167 00:15:35,040 --> 00:15:38,040 the electrical infrastructure capacity is for it, so that it can be considered at the 168 00:15:38,040 --> 00:15:45,040 very onset of the project and be awarded that award. If we start reducing costs, we'll find 169 00:15:45,040 --> 00:15:50,040 what the best option is to still get our building built to the intentions but under the budget. 170 00:15:50,040 --> 00:15:58,040 I read your report and I looked through the building feasibility study that you conducted 171 00:15:58,040 --> 00:16:05,040 this past year and I hear you saying a lot that it seems fiscally limited and even practically 172 00:16:05,040 --> 00:16:10,040 on an engineering level limited in our existing portfolio to add some of these options to 173 00:16:10,040 --> 00:16:16,040 those existing builds. I'm curious just to try to satisfy the ask here of Councilor Beck, 174 00:16:16,040 --> 00:16:21,040 what seems to maybe be the intent of this two minute pitch is a question about how do 175 00:16:21,040 --> 00:16:26,040 we improve facility resiliency, how do we potentially improve the thermal envelopes, 176 00:16:26,040 --> 00:16:31,040 how do we potentially improve its energy efficiency and are there other ways that we might be 177 00:16:31,040 --> 00:16:37,040 able to supplement maybe some of the impacts of we could consider impervious surface runoff 178 00:16:37,040 --> 00:16:41,040 and things like that and so I'm wondering beyond the vertical build analysis that you 179 00:16:41,040 --> 00:16:47,040 did, was there any consideration to utilizing not the structure itself but perhaps available 180 00:16:47,040 --> 00:16:54,040 adjacent land and I only say that thinking I know rooftop gardens and rooftop solar is 181 00:16:54,040 --> 00:16:58,040 kind of the hot thing that maybe if you're in Brooklyn, maybe if you're in Detroit, your 182 00:16:58,040 --> 00:17:03,040 spatial limitations only allow you vertical builds, right? We don't necessarily experience 183 00:17:03,040 --> 00:17:07,040 those same limitations, we do experience fiscal limitations and you identified where that 184 00:17:07,040 --> 00:17:13,040 hits our existing portfolio. So I'm just curious if we're not vertically limited, we're 185 00:17:13,040 --> 00:17:17,040 quite spatially available, we're just financially limited, are there options beyond the building 186 00:17:17,040 --> 00:17:22,040 envelope or the building portfolios themselves, I'm thinking the parking one, where maybe 187 00:17:22,040 --> 00:17:29,040 some covered parking with solar panels or adjacent curbside biosquales that could service 188 00:17:29,040 --> 00:17:34,040 some of those retention buffers might satisfy part of this ask without influencing the building 189 00:17:34,040 --> 00:17:39,040 envelope itself. Absolutely, so that's a great question and what we do to limit the environmental 190 00:17:39,040 --> 00:17:44,040 impact in these older facilities is when we're investing our capital funding into replacing 191 00:17:44,040 --> 00:17:49,040 windows and HVAC units, we ensure we're meeting the most energy conscious items that we buy, 192 00:17:49,040 --> 00:17:52,040 so if we're buying windows, they're going to be double painting our unfilled to ensure 193 00:17:52,040 --> 00:17:56,040 that they're the most efficient. When we're renovating an office space, we're insulating 194 00:17:56,040 --> 00:18:00,040 walls better than they were before, we're moving all of the fluorescent lights and moving 195 00:18:00,040 --> 00:18:07,040 to LEDs to support that. So overall, while we may not be able to reduce the energy consumption 196 00:18:07,040 --> 00:18:12,040 with solar at rooftop gardens, we are reducing the energy consumption in other means to meet 197 00:18:12,040 --> 00:18:16,040 that goal to make our buildings more efficient and sustainable as we renovate and touch that 198 00:18:16,040 --> 00:18:21,040 without major infrastructure. If we already have the thousand dollars to replace the window, 199 00:18:21,040 --> 00:18:25,040 we're going to replace it with the most energy efficient and maybe not the in kind from 1925 200 00:18:25,040 --> 00:18:29,040 that doesn't support that artifact that we like. So we're still doing things to make 201 00:18:29,040 --> 00:18:34,040 them more efficient, but also without having to do that major engineering studies and renovations 202 00:18:34,040 --> 00:18:40,040 and potential clearing the top of the building off and putting any roof on or occupant impact 203 00:18:40,040 --> 00:18:45,040 as well. When we talk about doing some of these projects here, when we're doing electrical 204 00:18:45,040 --> 00:18:48,040 infrastructure work, the buildings are going to be shut down, so that's a severe impact 205 00:18:48,040 --> 00:18:52,040 to city operations as well for the duration of that construction project where either 206 00:18:52,040 --> 00:18:55,040 the services that provide for the citizens will be impacted or the staff will have to 207 00:18:55,040 --> 00:19:00,040 be displaced for that time. So we try to just find all those other energy efficient options 208 00:19:00,040 --> 00:19:04,040 when renovating that support the goal here to be more efficient. 209 00:19:04,040 --> 00:19:09,040 I couldn't agree more, but if I may, to my direct question, are you amenable to the idea 210 00:19:09,040 --> 00:19:15,040 of building adjacent structures like option one or two, not using the existing envelope, 211 00:19:15,040 --> 00:19:18,040 but adjacent land to satisfy these asks? 212 00:19:18,040 --> 00:19:23,040 Absolutely, so facilities management just this year took over the renovating and maintenance 213 00:19:23,040 --> 00:19:27,040 of parking lots, so this will be considered as well when we're doing parking lots, is 214 00:19:27,040 --> 00:19:31,040 there a time to put in EV chargers while the ground's ripped up? Can we do over at parking? 215 00:19:31,040 --> 00:19:35,040 Is there grants available for solar power that can power the EV? So we do take all of 216 00:19:35,040 --> 00:19:39,040 that into consideration when we touch under one of our projects, is what can we do here 217 00:19:39,040 --> 00:19:42,040 to be the most cost effective and efficient with our space? 218 00:19:42,040 --> 00:19:46,040 Any others? 219 00:19:46,040 --> 00:19:50,040 I saw that DME was included as a participant. Do they have any specific recommendations 220 00:19:50,040 --> 00:19:53,040 for things that they want to see or don't want to see? 221 00:19:53,040 --> 00:19:57,040 I'm not sure I have to ask DME specifically. We just took their building portfolios in 222 00:19:57,040 --> 00:20:02,040 because they were the type of roofs or buildings that potentially were flat, but they provided 223 00:20:02,040 --> 00:20:06,040 us the electrical data, the consumption data over the last 35 years. 224 00:20:06,040 --> 00:20:07,040 Okay. 225 00:20:07,040 --> 00:20:11,040 Thanks for the presentation. 226 00:20:11,040 --> 00:20:12,040 Of course. 227 00:20:12,040 --> 00:20:21,040 Tagging on what Mr. Holmes said, I would like to see DME brought into this discussion, 228 00:20:21,040 --> 00:20:27,040 especially in regard to say solar panels and parking lots and that sort of thing, but I 229 00:20:27,040 --> 00:20:33,040 think since so much of this deals with what they are doing that they should definitely 230 00:20:33,040 --> 00:20:43,040 be an active participant in the planning of all this. Basically it looks like your second 231 00:20:43,040 --> 00:20:50,040 staff recommendation. Staff will consider these options in the design and planning of 232 00:20:50,040 --> 00:20:57,040 new construction projects, those options being both solar and the gardens? 233 00:20:57,040 --> 00:20:58,040 Yes, sir. 234 00:20:58,040 --> 00:21:14,040 Okay. Well, is it possible then to make that second staff recommendation one of the options 235 00:21:14,040 --> 00:21:22,040 here? Because as it is now, it's an either/or situation, whereas the staff recommendation 236 00:21:22,040 --> 00:21:32,040 is for both type projects on new construction. So what I'm getting at is can we consolidate 237 00:21:32,040 --> 00:21:35,040 one, can we add another option six to this? 238 00:21:35,040 --> 00:21:36,040 Of course we can. 239 00:21:36,040 --> 00:21:37,040 Yeah. 240 00:21:37,040 --> 00:21:40,040 And I believe with the staff recommendation, regardless of what we determined today that 241 00:21:40,040 --> 00:21:45,040 we will be moving forward with looking at efficiency options in architectural design. 242 00:21:45,040 --> 00:21:51,040 So we've done that year over year when we look at different type of HVAC units, solar 243 00:21:51,040 --> 00:21:55,040 units, solar panels, solar panels. So we're already doing it and I believe we will continue 244 00:21:55,040 --> 00:21:59,040 doing that as part of just the standard design and review phases of building part of construction. 245 00:21:59,040 --> 00:22:03,040 I believe that's why we didn't have it listed as an option because it's already ongoing. 246 00:22:03,040 --> 00:22:10,040 All right. So in that respect then, you need to know from us whether to move ahead with 247 00:22:10,040 --> 00:22:11,040 this pitch? 248 00:22:11,040 --> 00:22:18,040 Correct. Correct. To identify funding so that we can begin the evaluating the engineering 249 00:22:18,040 --> 00:22:22,040 assessments on the buildings to see if it's even applicable to install a rooftop garden 250 00:22:22,040 --> 00:22:26,040 or solar on some of the buildings that are existing. 251 00:22:26,040 --> 00:22:31,040 And that consideration for all new construction as well? 252 00:22:31,040 --> 00:22:33,040 Yes. 253 00:22:33,040 --> 00:22:37,040 Anybody have any remarks about that? 254 00:22:37,040 --> 00:22:42,040 I would suggest at the very least it sounds that both from the staff recommendation and 255 00:22:42,040 --> 00:22:46,040 from the conversation in this meeting that option three and four advancing those as a 256 00:22:46,040 --> 00:22:50,040 recommendation sounds like a good starting position. But I'd like a little more discussion 257 00:22:50,040 --> 00:22:55,040 over options one and two. 258 00:22:55,040 --> 00:23:01,040 I agree with that. I mean, maybe this is a question of clarification. You had said earlier 259 00:23:01,040 --> 00:23:09,040 in the presentation that options one and two, the evaluation itself is some of the numbers 260 00:23:09,040 --> 00:23:16,040 you were throwing out just with like $200,000 just to evaluate. That wasn't actually to 261 00:23:16,040 --> 00:23:17,040 build anything. 262 00:23:17,040 --> 00:23:22,040 Correct. So the first thing would be to propose this into the inclusion for the FY26-27 budget, 263 00:23:22,040 --> 00:23:28,040 allocating funds to have an engineering assessment done to these facilities that we as non-engineering 264 00:23:28,040 --> 00:23:33,040 people have determined that are plausible to be done. And then for them to give us a recommendation 265 00:23:33,040 --> 00:23:38,040 back of yes, no, if yes, what is the cost of actually implementing with the construction? 266 00:23:38,040 --> 00:23:44,040 But your sense as a non-engineering person but an expert in what you do is that that's 267 00:23:44,040 --> 00:23:50,040 not a wise use of our funds because we think that even if we could retrofit these buildings, 268 00:23:50,040 --> 00:23:56,040 it wouldn't do a whole lot of providing the values that we want to get out of a project 269 00:23:56,040 --> 00:23:57,040 like this. 270 00:23:57,040 --> 00:24:01,040 That is correct, yes. While I can't stand engineering drawings, the experience of facilities 271 00:24:01,040 --> 00:24:06,040 management, we can determine what is plausible and what should move forward with some planning 272 00:24:06,040 --> 00:24:11,040 and then what requires, you know, like a license PE to verify. So what we're asking for or 273 00:24:11,040 --> 00:24:15,040 what the options are not necessarily asking for is if we'd like to move forward, we will 274 00:24:15,040 --> 00:24:22,040 need to identify funding in the FY26-27 budget for an engineer to come out and take our plausible 275 00:24:22,040 --> 00:24:27,040 options and either prove them correct or determine that it's not possible to do that at all. 276 00:24:27,040 --> 00:24:33,040 I do have one more question. So I basically, in agreement with these options three and 277 00:24:33,040 --> 00:24:39,040 four, that seems reasonable to me, of course. My question is about that, though, if there's 278 00:24:39,040 --> 00:24:45,040 a brand new building that hasn't been imagined yet, let alone designed, and we've decided 279 00:24:45,040 --> 00:24:51,040 on this, it says consider the inclusion. I understand you say that we're going to have 280 00:24:51,040 --> 00:24:58,040 the architect build that in. When that comes back, in my mind, it's sort of like asking 281 00:24:58,040 --> 00:25:03,040 for the higher-model car. Greg, it's almost inevitably going to be more expensive maybe 282 00:25:03,040 --> 00:25:12,040 up front. What does staff then do or who decides whether that additional expense, if it is 283 00:25:12,040 --> 00:25:19,040 one, is worth paying because maybe it has a better long-term payout in terms of energy 284 00:25:19,040 --> 00:25:23,040 or, you know what I mean? Yeah, absolutely. Can you walk us through that decision-making? 285 00:25:23,040 --> 00:25:28,040 So currently, the way the construction phases work is that the users of the facilities, 286 00:25:28,040 --> 00:25:32,040 I would say fleet services, has a building, and we determine what operational need is, 287 00:25:32,040 --> 00:25:37,040 and we propose a budget. We also bring in all of these other considerations of sustainability 288 00:25:37,040 --> 00:25:42,040 and the environmental impact, things of that nature, and build up one full design. If that 289 00:25:42,040 --> 00:25:47,040 design is over budget, we sit down collaboratively as a team with finance, capital projects, 290 00:25:47,040 --> 00:25:52,040 facilities, fleet services, and determine where can we start reducing the cost of this 291 00:25:52,040 --> 00:25:57,040 building. Is it taking two bays off the service shop and leaving the rooftop solar and wall 292 00:25:57,040 --> 00:26:01,040 gardens? Is it removing solar but keeping wall gardens and having operational space? 293 00:26:01,040 --> 00:26:05,040 It's a collective effort in the city to determine what the best use of the funds are to meet 294 00:26:05,040 --> 00:26:10,040 the operational goals and of course all the council priorities on building these new facilities. 295 00:26:10,040 --> 00:26:15,040 Well, what this does then is it guarantees that these are part of that conversation. 296 00:26:15,040 --> 00:26:20,040 Correct. Right. So basically you're saying there will be cost-benefit studies done with 297 00:26:20,040 --> 00:26:28,040 each project. Of course. Yeah. So do we need to give you an official declaration here? 298 00:26:28,040 --> 00:26:35,040 Yes. Okay. So are we all agreed on a combination of options three and four? 299 00:26:35,040 --> 00:26:40,040 Yes. If that's what you would like to see the city pursue. Thank you. 300 00:26:40,040 --> 00:26:43,040 Absolutely. Thank you for your time everybody. Thank you. Thank you. 301 00:26:49,040 --> 00:26:52,040 All right. Next on our agenda. 302 00:26:52,040 --> 00:27:02,040 Okay. So we need to vote on what we just agreed to. 303 00:27:02,040 --> 00:27:11,040 I move to advance the recommendation to approve options three and four as presented. 304 00:27:11,040 --> 00:27:19,040 All in favor? I second. Second. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Passes. 305 00:27:19,040 --> 00:27:22,040 Okay. Thank you. 306 00:27:22,040 --> 00:27:31,040 Now we have received a report and consider a recommendation to city council for adoption 307 00:27:31,040 --> 00:27:36,040 on the final draft of the Simply Sustainable Framework. 308 00:27:36,040 --> 00:27:41,040 I'll hand it over to Lisa back with us for this today. 309 00:27:41,040 --> 00:27:54,040 All right. Good afternoon committee members. My name is Lisa Amador. 310 00:27:54,040 --> 00:27:59,040 I work in environmental services and sustainability as the senior program coordinator. 311 00:27:59,040 --> 00:28:04,040 We're going to touch base again on the Simply Sustainable Framework draft. 312 00:28:04,040 --> 00:28:13,040 So it's a draft that was included in House backup. So we're going to review the draft 313 00:28:13,040 --> 00:28:18,040 and receive feedback and go to some next steps. 314 00:28:18,040 --> 00:28:24,040 So just some background. The Simply Sustainable Plan was originally adopted in 2012 315 00:28:24,040 --> 00:28:29,040 with it being re-updated in 2020. 316 00:28:29,040 --> 00:28:35,040 We then created the Sustainability Framework Advisory Committee to help in assisting with implementing the plan. 317 00:28:35,040 --> 00:28:39,040 And the revision of the Simply Sustainable Framework happens every four to five years 318 00:28:39,040 --> 00:28:44,040 just to make sure it's not just a living document, but it also kicks up with a lot of the things 319 00:28:44,040 --> 00:28:49,040 and a lot of the growth that we're experiencing in that. 320 00:28:49,040 --> 00:28:54,040 So some of the plans that were adopted following the 2020 Simply Sustainable Framework. 321 00:28:54,040 --> 00:28:59,040 You guys are familiar with some of these plans and we've talked about them before, but Urban Forest Master Plan, 322 00:28:59,040 --> 00:29:07,040 Ben 2040 Plan, Mobility Plan. So it is just to say that we do keep these in mind whenever we're creating a, 323 00:29:07,040 --> 00:29:10,040 whenever we created the draft for the Simply Sustainable Framework. 324 00:29:10,040 --> 00:29:14,040 And of course, you guys are familiar with the Climb to Action Plan, which was adopted in 2024. 325 00:29:14,040 --> 00:29:20,040 And we have a link under our belt with that. 326 00:29:20,040 --> 00:29:24,040 So feedback that we received from aspects from you all and then also the Committee on the Environment 327 00:29:24,040 --> 00:29:27,040 was providing a vision, guiding principles. 328 00:29:27,040 --> 00:29:30,040 We did get a mention of the Hazards and Vulnerability Risk Assessment, 329 00:29:30,040 --> 00:29:34,040 Greenhouse Gas and Mentory, Defining Renewable Generation, 330 00:29:34,040 --> 00:29:44,040 and then exploring incentives for battery storage, which staff did take into consideration. 331 00:29:44,040 --> 00:29:49,040 So with that, we are wanting to come to you all to see if you guys are requesting 332 00:29:49,040 --> 00:29:57,040 any additional changes or if you consider recommending the adoption of the Simply Sustainable Framework to City Council. 333 00:29:57,040 --> 00:30:01,040 And with that, I will take questions. 334 00:30:01,040 --> 00:30:03,040 Questions? 335 00:30:03,040 --> 00:30:25,040 So, are you requiring, so if we go to Goal 1, Renews, and then Goal 2, I think, the same. 336 00:30:25,040 --> 00:30:31,040 Are you requiring developers to incorporate green infrastructure? 337 00:30:31,040 --> 00:30:35,040 Are you on, okay, land use? 338 00:30:35,040 --> 00:30:38,040 You're on page 10, right? 339 00:30:38,040 --> 00:30:39,040 Yeah. 340 00:30:39,040 --> 00:30:45,040 So, I don't think we would require, but we are going to explore the opportunity to be able to encourage. 341 00:30:45,040 --> 00:30:46,040 Encourage. 342 00:30:46,040 --> 00:30:48,040 Let's use the word encourage in this case. 343 00:30:48,040 --> 00:30:49,040 Yes, encourage, yes. 344 00:30:49,040 --> 00:30:50,040 All right. 345 00:30:50,040 --> 00:30:55,040 And to adopt this ecological-friendly practices. 346 00:30:55,040 --> 00:30:57,040 To explore those opportunities. 347 00:30:57,040 --> 00:31:06,040 All right, like green roofs, rain gardens, and permeable pavement, storm water. 348 00:31:06,040 --> 00:31:11,040 Those are going to be opportunities that we can have with discussions, with planning, 349 00:31:11,040 --> 00:31:14,040 on how they're looking at those things. 350 00:31:14,040 --> 00:31:20,040 So, we'll just explore opportunities to be able to encourage. 351 00:31:20,040 --> 00:31:23,040 All right, bear with me a little bit. 352 00:31:23,040 --> 00:31:25,040 It's a long document. 353 00:31:25,040 --> 00:31:30,040 And I think on Goal 2, yes, on Goal 2, it's the same thing for land use. 354 00:31:30,040 --> 00:31:31,040 Goal 2. 355 00:31:31,040 --> 00:31:32,040 Mm-hmm. 356 00:31:32,040 --> 00:31:35,040 Yeah. 357 00:31:35,040 --> 00:31:44,040 I have a question though, because I'm not familiar, and I would like you to explain to me. 358 00:31:44,040 --> 00:31:50,040 What is this? 359 00:31:50,040 --> 00:31:53,040 Denton Chill Street. 360 00:31:53,040 --> 00:31:58,040 So, that was included in the Denton Downtown Plan. 361 00:31:58,040 --> 00:32:04,040 They were looking at opportunities to have areas of downtown that would be well shaded. 362 00:32:04,040 --> 00:32:08,040 So, that was looked at within that plan, yes. 363 00:32:08,040 --> 00:32:10,040 All right. 364 00:32:10,040 --> 00:32:13,040 Thanks. 365 00:32:13,040 --> 00:32:14,040 Anyone else? 366 00:32:14,040 --> 00:32:16,040 No. 367 00:32:16,040 --> 00:32:26,040 Can I just ask a question about your experience with this framework that's been in place now for five years? 368 00:32:26,040 --> 00:32:32,040 Can you explain to us what function does this serve? 369 00:32:32,040 --> 00:32:34,040 Is it helpful? 370 00:32:34,040 --> 00:32:36,040 Like, when does it get taken up? 371 00:32:36,040 --> 00:32:40,040 You know, can you kind of shed light on -- there's all these plans. 372 00:32:40,040 --> 00:32:41,040 Right. 373 00:32:41,040 --> 00:32:48,040 Practically, when it comes time, we're making decisions about new construction and all this stuff. 374 00:32:48,040 --> 00:32:55,040 Does somebody actually pick this up and say, well, the framework says we should be thinking about this. 375 00:32:55,040 --> 00:32:58,040 Like, does it really come into play, is what I'm wondering. 376 00:32:58,040 --> 00:33:02,040 Is there more we can do to make it effective, I guess? 377 00:33:02,040 --> 00:33:10,040 Well, I know that that is the role of the Sustainability Framework Advisory Committee to help kind of guide the framework. 378 00:33:10,040 --> 00:33:15,040 But this also comes into play when we're having conversations with other internal departments. 379 00:33:15,040 --> 00:33:18,040 You know, we talk to them about what they're already doing. 380 00:33:18,040 --> 00:33:23,040 And with that, that's pretty much included in here with some of the strategies and metrics and the goals. 381 00:33:23,040 --> 00:33:25,040 Those are conversations that we're already having with them. 382 00:33:25,040 --> 00:33:29,040 So, they have it top of mind that, hey, we're working on this. 383 00:33:29,040 --> 00:33:32,040 What do we want the goal or what do we want that to look like within five years? 384 00:33:32,040 --> 00:33:34,040 You know, what do we want to accomplish? 385 00:33:34,040 --> 00:33:37,040 So, we do have those conversations with them. 386 00:33:37,040 --> 00:33:40,040 So, it's also, I guess, I wouldn't say a responsibility. 387 00:33:40,040 --> 00:33:47,040 But we also keep in mind that it's always good to remind and check in with those other departments to make sure that we're all on the same page. 388 00:33:47,040 --> 00:33:49,040 And then we all have the same goal in mind. 389 00:33:49,040 --> 00:33:50,040 Okay, that's interesting. 390 00:33:50,040 --> 00:33:53,040 So, it's coming up in these internal departmental meetings? 391 00:33:53,040 --> 00:33:54,040 Yes, yes. 392 00:33:54,040 --> 00:33:55,040 Okay. 393 00:33:55,040 --> 00:33:56,040 Thank you. 394 00:33:56,040 --> 00:34:00,040 And Catherine has done a great job with, you know, making sure that we are having those conversations, 395 00:34:00,040 --> 00:34:03,040 that we're having those conversations ahead of time, too. 396 00:34:03,040 --> 00:34:09,040 Just because that way they also keep it, they keep, departments can keep it top of mind. 397 00:34:09,040 --> 00:34:13,040 So, upper management. 398 00:34:13,040 --> 00:34:19,040 Last time we got a staff recommendation. 399 00:34:19,040 --> 00:34:21,040 I didn't see one here. 400 00:34:21,040 --> 00:34:28,040 I don't know if it's not appropriate for you to say, I mean, you're presenting it as the final draft. 401 00:34:28,040 --> 00:34:31,040 So, I guess that's implied in the language. 402 00:34:31,040 --> 00:34:36,040 But from y'all's perspective, this is, how's this looking? 403 00:34:36,040 --> 00:34:39,040 Can I ask that question? 404 00:34:39,040 --> 00:34:47,040 Well, it's, we don't have a do nothing option for our recommendation. 405 00:34:47,040 --> 00:34:51,040 Consider recommending it to the city council. 406 00:34:51,040 --> 00:34:52,040 Okay. 407 00:34:52,040 --> 00:34:55,040 Thank you. 408 00:34:55,040 --> 00:35:01,040 I know we've had performance indicators in all of our plans and I know sometimes we jump back on that maybe, 409 00:35:01,040 --> 00:35:06,040 like our recycling goals were doing great, you know, or our education goals were meeting all these new people. 410 00:35:06,040 --> 00:35:10,040 They do seem to be kind of off scheduled conversations. 411 00:35:10,040 --> 00:35:15,040 I am curious for, since we're talking about this plan or considering recommending this plan, 412 00:35:15,040 --> 00:35:25,040 could we formalize maybe an annual check in about how we are doing in meeting these indicators in the way that the, 413 00:35:25,040 --> 00:35:32,040 because I remember we've had some modifications over the years between plans where something's just not realistic or it's not phrased in a way that's trackable. 414 00:35:32,040 --> 00:35:33,040 Yeah. 415 00:35:33,040 --> 00:35:41,040 It would be nice, especially because this is only roughly a five year opportunity, that if we check in annually to see how we're doing or what are the ways our programs are responding, 416 00:35:41,040 --> 00:35:48,040 it might give us a little bit more granular, we can magnify our impact in a bit more of a targeted way. 417 00:35:48,040 --> 00:35:55,040 Maybe seeing that prior to any fiscal conversations particularly would be helpful so we can make sure we're targeting our, 418 00:35:55,040 --> 00:36:02,040 what little letters we do have to make sure that these programs are actually meeting the adopted goal. 419 00:36:02,040 --> 00:36:03,040 Yes. 420 00:36:03,040 --> 00:36:09,040 And just like we have the climate action plan dashboard, we are also looking at having a simply single framework dashboard. 421 00:36:09,040 --> 00:36:16,040 And hopefully that provides insight on more of a regular basis for people that are wanting to see the progress on specific strategies and metrics. 422 00:36:16,040 --> 00:36:24,040 And that would provide, I believe, also like end of fiscal year data, so that would be able to provide you guys updates with that information. 423 00:36:24,040 --> 00:36:28,040 I think that could be a really rich conversation going forward. 424 00:36:28,040 --> 00:36:33,040 Does anyone have anything to add? 425 00:36:33,040 --> 00:36:46,040 I didn't see anything in this plan that says anything about why we need to pursue these things. 426 00:36:46,040 --> 00:37:04,040 And we need to provide justification for what we're trying to do and economic, social, and environmental benefits of what this plan should produce. 427 00:37:04,040 --> 00:37:24,040 I couldn't find any mention even in passing of climate change and it's, I think that should be mentioned just as it's alluded to in the CAP plan. 428 00:37:24,040 --> 00:37:37,040 But I think we need to present a justification, an explanation as to why this is good and why we need to do it. 429 00:37:37,040 --> 00:37:55,040 I also have a problem, not a problem, but I think we're severely handicapped in our evaluation of the overall situation here, 430 00:37:55,040 --> 00:38:18,040 especially in terms of renewable energy, because of the failure of the value of solar study that was done, the failure of it to take into account the social benefits of renewable energy and debt. 431 00:38:18,040 --> 00:38:35,040 The environmental benefits were not quantified, the economic benefits were not assessed, the grid benefits were not alluded to, and that's just not right. 432 00:38:35,040 --> 00:38:51,040 And that hinders any future progress as far as I'm concerned. So I would be adamant about, from my standpoint at least, that we need a value of solar study that doesn't discount these things, 433 00:38:51,040 --> 00:39:10,040 which the previous and the only study has done, without justification. So I know that's going to take time. 434 00:39:10,040 --> 00:39:27,040 But on the other hand, the justification and the benefits of doing what are proposed in this, I think those should be added, either as an introduction to the plan, why we are doing this. 435 00:39:27,040 --> 00:39:44,040 Something that simple would be very, very good, because we can't lose sight that we also have a duty to educate, and just the recycling program is the best example of that, what education does. 436 00:39:44,040 --> 00:39:52,040 We need to do the same thing with this, I think. So that's my tenth sense. 437 00:39:52,040 --> 00:40:07,040 If I could, I actually echo that a little bit, because I remember the last time we touched on this draft, I had also requested kind of a cutout about guiding principles, and to Ed's point, the justification of, even Adam said something like this, 438 00:40:07,040 --> 00:40:16,040 why does this document need to exist, what's it do? And I think strongly calling attention to that might satisfy some of these reservations, members of the committee have. 439 00:40:16,040 --> 00:40:29,040 But I did also just look, because I haven't done that. Climate change is mentioned several times in our document under sustainability and resiliency, and so I think that is echoed pretty nicely throughout that document, and in those performance metrics as well. 440 00:40:29,040 --> 00:40:50,040 But I would agree to Ed's point that having just a really clean headliner on what motivates the production of this document and what it seeks to achieve as a guiding principles or a mission statement almost, would be really effective in helping us translate this document across departments, as you said earlier. 441 00:40:50,040 --> 00:41:11,040 And I revised it, I included mission in one of those sentences, but I don't think it was enough. Any other discussion? Do I need to vote on this too? So, do we all agree on... 442 00:41:11,040 --> 00:41:21,040 You can ask for a motion to, you can ask for a motion on the item, recommending, not recommending. 443 00:41:21,040 --> 00:41:36,040 Well that's, are we in, how many are in favor of adopting the document as it is now written? 444 00:41:36,040 --> 00:41:42,040 So you would, the procedure is you would ask for a motion on the agenda item. 445 00:41:42,040 --> 00:41:53,040 Okay, do I have a motion on the agenda item? 446 00:41:53,040 --> 00:42:06,040 Yes sir. What you can do is ask each member as well if what their feelings are, what their guidance is towards this document, and we capture that and we can move forward on that. 447 00:42:06,040 --> 00:42:16,040 So in other words, we've heard some feedback that there are some changes that are being requested, so if each member would just give their direction in that regard, that should be sufficient. 448 00:42:16,040 --> 00:42:37,040 So could we get direction from everybody? I at the moment would like to see those requested changes regarding the heading principles and effectively mission statement within the document, and I would be comfortable adopting that document with those changes. 449 00:42:37,040 --> 00:43:03,040 And I would like to include you, to include a line either in Go 1 or 2 at land use, about what we talk about the businesses, encouraging them to incorporate green infrastructure in their activities. 450 00:43:03,040 --> 00:43:09,040 I like it as it is, but I'm fine with these changes. 451 00:43:09,040 --> 00:43:22,040 I'm fine with the changes that the other members have recommended and also recommend adoption of the document as it is. 452 00:43:22,040 --> 00:43:39,040 If I could make a motion to reject the adoption of this document as presented so that it has the opportunity to return with the requested changes at an upcoming meeting? 453 00:43:39,040 --> 00:43:53,040 We have a motion to reject the current document until specified changes have been made, which have already been expressed by everybody. 454 00:43:53,040 --> 00:43:55,040 How many are in favor? 455 00:43:55,040 --> 00:43:56,040 Do we need a second? 456 00:43:56,040 --> 00:43:57,040 What? 457 00:43:57,040 --> 00:43:58,040 Do we need a second? 458 00:43:58,040 --> 00:43:59,040 I second. 459 00:43:59,040 --> 00:44:00,040 Will you second? 460 00:44:00,040 --> 00:44:01,040 How many in favor? 461 00:44:01,040 --> 00:44:04,040 Aye. 462 00:44:04,040 --> 00:44:07,040 Opposed? 463 00:44:07,040 --> 00:44:09,040 It's good, it's good. 464 00:44:09,040 --> 00:44:12,040 Passes. 465 00:44:12,040 --> 00:44:20,040 Anything else we need to do? 466 00:44:20,040 --> 00:44:39,040 Thank you for the presentation. 467 00:44:39,040 --> 00:45:00,040 All right, next we have staff reports. 468 00:45:00,040 --> 00:45:03,040 I was curious as to the size. 469 00:45:03,040 --> 00:45:14,040 I don't think that was mentioned in the acreage. 470 00:45:14,040 --> 00:45:42,040 I asked for that to open up a future discussion perhaps with DME of using that land if that thing is off, if it could be used for a solar installation. 471 00:45:42,040 --> 00:45:47,040 Any other comments on that? 472 00:45:47,040 --> 00:45:48,040 Thank you, Kathy. 473 00:45:48,040 --> 00:45:49,040 You're welcome. 474 00:45:49,040 --> 00:45:51,040 And then we also have the matrix. 475 00:45:51,040 --> 00:46:02,040 Anybody have anything you want to add to the matrix? 476 00:46:02,040 --> 00:46:03,040 I have something. 477 00:46:03,040 --> 00:46:04,040 Okay. 478 00:46:04,040 --> 00:46:17,040 I would like to initiate discussions on having a new value of solar study done. 479 00:46:17,040 --> 00:46:38,040 In combination, in regards to our discussion about the plan, the Simply Sustainable Framework Plan. 480 00:46:38,040 --> 00:46:40,040 Any other comments? 481 00:46:40,040 --> 00:46:46,040 I do have a question regarding the structure of the matrix, if I can. 482 00:46:46,040 --> 00:46:54,040 Our previous formatting had included a pending date scheduled when the item would be presented. 483 00:46:54,040 --> 00:46:59,040 That was really helpful to kind of think about when those conversations would occur. 484 00:46:59,040 --> 00:47:11,040 The new one is great because it still obviously includes when the initial request was made, but it does make it seem a little bit more difficult to track how we're working through each of these items. 485 00:47:11,040 --> 00:47:20,040 So I'm always a little just confused as to what the formatting changed, and that's a question you can answer. 486 00:47:20,040 --> 00:47:26,040 I know that some of the dates that we had entered in the matrix got a little bit difficult, 487 00:47:26,040 --> 00:47:43,040 because we had multiple meetings cancelled and liable for them, so that's why we went to the short meeting long term, rather than assigning a date to it. 488 00:47:43,040 --> 00:47:47,040 Any other comments? 489 00:47:47,040 --> 00:47:51,040 Okay, with that, we shall adjourn. 490 00:47:51,040 --> 00:47:54,040 Do I have a motion to adjourn? 491 00:47:54,040 --> 00:47:55,040 I move to adjourn. 492 00:47:55,040 --> 00:47:57,040 Second to that motion. 493 00:47:57,040 --> 00:47:59,040 All in favor of adjourning? 494 00:47:59,040 --> 00:48:00,040 Aye. 495 00:48:00,040 --> 00:48:02,040 Thank you very much.