WEBVTT 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:13.160 Okay, good afternoon. This is the October 24th, 2025 meeting of the Sustainability Framework 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 00:00:18.600 --> 00:00:29.040 first item for individual consideration is approval of September 26, 2025 minutes. Does 00:00:29.040 --> 00:00:37.080 anyone wish to approve or disapprove? I move to approve. Mr. Richter moves to approve. 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. 00:00:45.720 --> 00:00:52.200 The minutes of September have been approved. Our second item is to receive a report, hold 00:00:52.200 --> 00:00:59.040 a discussion, and give staff direction regarding City Council requests to review a two-minute 00:00:59.040 --> 00:01:08.000 pitch for rooftop solar and rooftop garden/wall garden retrofits for existing city facilities. 00:01:08.000 --> 00:01:13.360 We have Tom Gremer with us today. Good afternoon. Tom Gremer, Director of Facilities and Fleet 00:01:13.360 --> 00:01:22.320 Services for the City of Denver. Background, on November 25, 2024, Councilmember Beck submitted 00:01:22.320 --> 00:01:24.800 a two-minute pitch to explore the installation of rooftop and wall gardens and solar panels 00:01:24.800 --> 00:01:30.040 with batteries on city buildings. On December 3, 2024, City Council approved consensus for 00:01:30.040 --> 00:01:34.640 staff to publish an informal staff report addressing the feasibility of the pitch. On 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 00:01:41.000 --> 00:01:44.760 Advisory Committee recommended setting the pitch to the Sustainability Framework Advisory 00:01:44.760 --> 00:01:49.640 Committee. We're here. Currently, the City of Denver facilities, that facilities management 00:01:49.640 --> 00:01:55.880 operates, is 206 buildings. We conducted a facilities condition assessment in 2020-2021, 00:01:55.880 --> 00:02:00.480 which identified the need for maintenance and repairs of our current facilities, what 00:02:00.480 --> 00:02:03.800 we call deferred maintenance, those items that were not funded throughout the years 00:02:03.800 --> 00:02:07.600 that they needed to be repaired, and we put them into deferred status, which then required 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 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 00:02:19.240 --> 00:02:26.920 items forward and/or delay them to meet the City's financial expectations. Considerations 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 00:02:30.560 --> 00:02:36.240 wall gardens. When considering our new construction, the addition of the rooftop and wall gardens 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 00:02:42.720 --> 00:02:48.120 new building installation for solar and batteries will also be considered in the new capital 00:02:48.120 --> 00:02:54.400 planning for the facility of construction. Our consideration for our existing buildings, 00:02:54.400 --> 00:02:59.120 we have 28 of the City's 206 facilities that have roof structures potentially suitable for 00:02:59.120 --> 00:03:03.600 our rooftop gardens. What that means is those are the parapet type of roofs, rather than 00:03:03.600 --> 00:03:08.200 a gable or pitch style roof. So there would still be engineering considerations to look 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. 00:03:13.720 --> 00:03:17.440 Any engineering survey would be required before we add any additional weight or we'd even 00:03:17.440 --> 00:03:22.400 be able to consider installing additional equipment on top of the roofs. For an example, 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 00:03:27.640 --> 00:03:31.600 to ensure that the rooftop could support the additional weight and load for that type of 00:03:31.600 --> 00:03:36.560 roof. The cost for engineering assessments traditionally range between $50,000 and $200,000 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, 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 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 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 00:03:59.680 --> 00:04:03.760 for each facility based on the current energy consumption that we pulled from our historical 00:04:03.760 --> 00:04:12.680 reports. Through our next steps for the committee to consider is option one, identify and evaluate 00:04:12.680 --> 00:04:16.960 our existing buildings for rooftop gardens and recommend to city council for inclusion 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 00:04:22.960 --> 00:04:27.160 buildings for solar panels with or without battery storage and recommend that for inclusion 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 00:04:31.840 --> 00:04:37.520 gardens on all of our new construction moving forward when applicable. And then option four, 00:04:37.520 --> 00:04:41.720 consider inclusion of solar panels with or without our battery storage and our new construction 00:04:41.720 --> 00:04:50.080 as well. And then finally option five would be to not recommend moving forward with suspension. 00:04:50.080 --> 00:04:54.800 Our recommendation for current projects, we do not have sufficient funding to consider 00:04:54.800 --> 00:04:58.640 our rooftop and wall gardens as well as solar battery installation on our existing city 00:04:58.640 --> 00:05:03.640 facilities. However, we will consider these options in design and the planning phases 00:05:03.640 --> 00:05:07.680 of all new construction projects when applicable for our vertical construction where these 00:05:07.680 --> 00:05:11.400 can be integrated at the beginning of the construction project and built to purpose 00:05:11.400 --> 00:05:28.400 to be more efficient throughout the life of that building. Any questions? Everyone? Yes. 00:05:28.400 --> 00:05:36.800 Alright so, is it my understanding that the current budget is 25 million that were moved 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 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 00:05:49.040 --> 00:05:53.320 items. Throughout the years of course, budget constraints will limit that and so far we've 00:05:53.320 --> 00:05:58.200 been investing almost 25 million dollars into our aging infrastructure just to get them 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 00:06:06.880 --> 00:06:15.040 paragraphs, currently significant number of, significant number of, so do you have a number, 00:06:15.040 --> 00:06:23.360 for example, how many buildings, city buildings continue to operate beyond their expected 00:06:23.360 --> 00:06:28.160 lifespan? Of course, most of our city facilities from when they were originally built, are 00:06:28.160 --> 00:06:32.160 operating past their existing life cycle. A building traditionally is meant for 30 to 00:06:32.160 --> 00:06:36.720 50 years of continuous operation before a major renovation or capital investment is 00:06:36.720 --> 00:06:41.240 needed into the infrastructure. So right now, a lot of our buildings, 150 percent, are at 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 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 00:06:50.920 --> 00:06:57.160 buildings lack the necessary electrical infrastructure to support renewable energy? Currently all 00:06:57.160 --> 00:07:01.640 buildings, they were not built for the intended purpose of solar, so any additional solar 00:07:01.640 --> 00:07:07.400 would require electrical infrastructure. So that means all the city buildings? Correct. 00:07:07.400 --> 00:07:19.000 206? Correct. Okay, so do we have historical buildings in the city buildings? We do, there 00:07:19.000 --> 00:07:24.360 are some city buildings that are designated as so. All right, so how about working on 00:07:24.360 --> 00:07:31.600 those and install the rooftop and gardens? Have you thought about that? Of course, and 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 00:07:35.680 --> 00:07:41.200 appearance of that facility to incorporate solar or some other options. And then traditionally 00:07:41.200 --> 00:07:46.360 in very aged buildings, when you begin updating infrastructure, the rule is, if you touch 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 00:07:51.320 --> 00:07:56.240 already, say, grandfathered into how it was built, we also break into having to upgrade 00:07:56.240 --> 00:08:00.640 all that additional infrastructure as well. Let alone if that facility can even support 00:08:00.640 --> 00:08:06.360 the size, the space, the well-bearing needs for the solar orbit operations. All right, 00:08:06.360 --> 00:08:17.120 also in your report, you mentioned that the estimated annual energy cost savings from 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 00:08:25.000 --> 00:08:33.480 into consideration the fact that installing the rooftops, gardens, or the walled gardens, 00:08:33.480 --> 00:08:40.920 they can increase the energy efficiency of those buildings? Yes, we did consider that. 00:08:40.920 --> 00:08:45.240 Through our analysis, we determined that there might be a very hard factor of the facility, 00:08:45.240 --> 00:08:51.520 which would require less DU cycles on HVAC units. And of course, the solar panels. There 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, 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. 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 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 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 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 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 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 00:09:38.440 --> 00:09:43.240 budget presentation. We would identify potentially the best buildings for this, for existing 00:09:43.240 --> 00:09:47.640 facilities, and then provide an ROI and an expectation of the cost. And then it would 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. 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 00:09:56.840 --> 00:10:01.040 would be the infrastructure for the existing facility. Whereas if you took that money and 00:10:01.040 --> 00:10:05.040 utilized that for new construction, you could get more bang for your buck when building 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 00:10:13.040 --> 00:10:19.040 demolish some of the old buildings, city buildings? Right now, no. No? With our growth expectations, 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 00:10:23.040 --> 00:10:27.040 occupied facilities unless we were building facilities that could support the growth plus 00:10:27.040 --> 00:10:32.040 existing occupancy. Are there plans to build new facilities? There are plans to build new 00:10:32.040 --> 00:10:37.040 facilities to the capital planning. There's a few considerations of budgeting moving forward, 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 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? 00:10:49.040 --> 00:10:54.040 Of course. So the next, currently they're building fire stations five and six, and that 00:10:54.040 --> 00:10:59.040 was before we utilized and we considered rooftop solar. Moving forward, say the new service 00:10:59.040 --> 00:11:03.040 center or any other new buildings that are proposed, during the design phase, this will 00:11:03.040 --> 00:11:08.040 be a requirement for the architect to build into the specifications so we can assess the 00:11:08.040 --> 00:11:16.040 cost and the viability of adding this at that time. Okay. Thank you. Any others? Comments? 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 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 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. 00:11:32.040 --> 00:11:36.040 What we really run into is that our commercial properties, which essentially is everything 00:11:36.040 --> 00:11:42.040 the city owns, we generate more consumption than the space available for solar. So very 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 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. 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 00:12:01.040 --> 00:12:06.040 worded this, current projects do not have sufficient funding. And I'm not understanding, 00:12:06.040 --> 00:12:11.040 wasn't the two-minute pitch partially about increasing the funding so that there would 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 00:12:18.040 --> 00:12:24.040 capable of and should we increase funding to assess it and potentially move forward? 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 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 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 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 00:12:43.040 --> 00:12:49.040 assessments, and the potential of making this happen. And so your recommendation, what if 00:12:49.040 --> 00:12:57.040 you could go back a slide to the options? Your recommendation would be through three 00:12:57.040 --> 00:13:03.040 and four, I guess? Just the new construction? Yes, the new construction of all the bond 00:13:03.040 --> 00:13:06.040 projects that we've established and things that are being in the design phase currently, 00:13:06.040 --> 00:13:12.040 adding that requirement to the specifications package that the architect will build out 00:13:12.040 --> 00:13:16.040 of any facilities moving forward would be considered for this type of project. And that's 00:13:16.040 --> 00:13:24.040 for essentially cost effectiveness and ROI reasons that these retrofits are just cost 00:13:24.040 --> 00:13:31.040 prohibitive, you think, essentially? If I could jump in here briefly to Adam's question, 00:13:31.040 --> 00:13:35.040 you foresee option three and four coming out of capital improvements planning, or you see 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 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 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 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 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 00:14:02.040 --> 00:14:06.040 in the architectural drawings, we would have to start scaling the proposal to meet those 00:14:06.040 --> 00:14:11.040 budgeting expectations. So projected larger facilities like the new South Branch Library, 00:14:11.040 --> 00:14:16.040 the new senior center, both the fire stations you mentioned, the Lynn-McMahon project, all 00:14:16.040 --> 00:14:20.040 of the '23 bond program, none of those projects are considering eligible for options three 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 00:14:24.040 --> 00:14:28.040 with the architect. If we find that costs are driving down, where we budget our expected 00:14:28.040 --> 00:14:33.040 buildings, and we have contingency or other opportunities, then we can do it. I think 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 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 00:14:42.040 --> 00:14:46.040 groundbreaking. So to go back and change all the architectural information or change the 00:14:46.040 --> 00:14:50.040 specifications over the increased costs wouldn't be appropriate. So it's really about where 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 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 00:15:02.040 --> 00:15:07.040 to this existing facility for additional staff offices, which would be a significant build. 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 00:15:12.040 --> 00:15:17.040 bids for that architectural design to include these two features or at least one of the 00:15:17.040 --> 00:15:20.040 above? That is correct. Facilities management provides standard specifications of what we 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 00:15:26.040 --> 00:15:30.040 that we use, the type of doors, our hardware, our plumbing expectations. This we put in 00:15:30.040 --> 00:15:35.040 that original bid where we would like to see rooftop garden options, solar options, what 00:15:35.040 --> 00:15:38.040 the electrical infrastructure capacity is for it, so that it can be considered at the 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 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. 00:15:50.040 --> 00:15:58.040 I read your report and I looked through the building feasibility study that you conducted 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 00:16:05.040 --> 00:16:10.040 on an engineering level limited in our existing portfolio to add some of these options to 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, 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 00:16:21.040 --> 00:16:26.040 we improve facility resiliency, how do we potentially improve the thermal envelopes, 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 00:16:31.040 --> 00:16:37.040 able to supplement maybe some of the impacts of we could consider impervious surface runoff 00:16:37.040 --> 00:16:41.040 and things like that and so I'm wondering beyond the vertical build analysis that you 00:16:41.040 --> 00:16:47.040 did, was there any consideration to utilizing not the structure itself but perhaps available 00:16:47.040 --> 00:16:54.040 adjacent land and I only say that thinking I know rooftop gardens and rooftop solar is 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 00:16:58.040 --> 00:17:03.040 spatial limitations only allow you vertical builds, right? We don't necessarily experience 00:17:03.040 --> 00:17:07.040 those same limitations, we do experience fiscal limitations and you identified where that 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 00:17:13.040 --> 00:17:17.040 quite spatially available, we're just financially limited, are there options beyond the building 00:17:17.040 --> 00:17:22.040 envelope or the building portfolios themselves, I'm thinking the parking one, where maybe 00:17:22.040 --> 00:17:29.040 some covered parking with solar panels or adjacent curbside biosquales that could service 00:17:29.040 --> 00:17:34.040 some of those retention buffers might satisfy part of this ask without influencing the building 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 00:17:39.040 --> 00:17:44.040 impact in these older facilities is when we're investing our capital funding into replacing 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, 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 00:17:52.040 --> 00:17:56.040 that they're the most efficient. When we're renovating an office space, we're insulating 00:17:56.040 --> 00:18:00.040 walls better than they were before, we're moving all of the fluorescent lights and moving 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 00:18:07.040 --> 00:18:12.040 with solar at rooftop gardens, we are reducing the energy consumption in other means to meet 00:18:12.040 --> 00:18:16.040 that goal to make our buildings more efficient and sustainable as we renovate and touch that 00:18:16.040 --> 00:18:21.040 without major infrastructure. If we already have the thousand dollars to replace the window, 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 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 00:18:29.040 --> 00:18:34.040 them more efficient, but also without having to do that major engineering studies and renovations 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 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 00:18:45.040 --> 00:18:48.040 infrastructure work, the buildings are going to be shut down, so that's a severe impact 00:18:48.040 --> 00:18:52.040 to city operations as well for the duration of that construction project where either 00:18:52.040 --> 00:18:55.040 the services that provide for the citizens will be impacted or the staff will have to 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 00:19:00.040 --> 00:19:04.040 when renovating that support the goal here to be more efficient. 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 00:19:09.040 --> 00:19:15.040 of building adjacent structures like option one or two, not using the existing envelope, 00:19:15.040 --> 00:19:18.040 but adjacent land to satisfy these asks? 00:19:18.040 --> 00:19:23.040 Absolutely, so facilities management just this year took over the renovating and maintenance 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 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? 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 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 00:19:39.040 --> 00:19:42.040 to be the most cost effective and efficient with our space? 00:19:42.040 --> 00:19:46.040 Any others? 00:19:46.040 --> 00:19:50.040 I saw that DME was included as a participant. Do they have any specific recommendations 00:19:50.040 --> 00:19:53.040 for things that they want to see or don't want to see? 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 00:19:57.040 --> 00:20:02.040 because they were the type of roofs or buildings that potentially were flat, but they provided 00:20:02.040 --> 00:20:06.040 us the electrical data, the consumption data over the last 35 years. 00:20:06.040 --> 00:20:07.040 Okay. 00:20:07.040 --> 00:20:11.040 Thanks for the presentation. 00:20:11.040 --> 00:20:12.040 Of course. 00:20:12.040 --> 00:20:21.040 Tagging on what Mr. Holmes said, I would like to see DME brought into this discussion, 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 00:20:27.040 --> 00:20:33.040 think since so much of this deals with what they are doing that they should definitely 00:20:33.040 --> 00:20:43.040 be an active participant in the planning of all this. Basically it looks like your second 00:20:43.040 --> 00:20:50.040 staff recommendation. Staff will consider these options in the design and planning of 00:20:50.040 --> 00:20:57.040 new construction projects, those options being both solar and the gardens? 00:20:57.040 --> 00:20:58.040 Yes, sir. 00:20:58.040 --> 00:21:14.040 Okay. Well, is it possible then to make that second staff recommendation one of the options 00:21:14.040 --> 00:21:22.040 here? Because as it is now, it's an either/or situation, whereas the staff recommendation 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 00:21:32.040 --> 00:21:35.040 one, can we add another option six to this? 00:21:35.040 --> 00:21:36.040 Of course we can. 00:21:36.040 --> 00:21:37.040 Yeah. 00:21:37.040 --> 00:21:40.040 And I believe with the staff recommendation, regardless of what we determined today that 00:21:40.040 --> 00:21:45.040 we will be moving forward with looking at efficiency options in architectural design. 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 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 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. 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. 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 00:22:10.040 --> 00:22:11.040 this pitch? 00:22:11.040 --> 00:22:18.040 Correct. Correct. To identify funding so that we can begin the evaluating the engineering 00:22:18.040 --> 00:22:22.040 assessments on the buildings to see if it's even applicable to install a rooftop garden 00:22:22.040 --> 00:22:26.040 or solar on some of the buildings that are existing. 00:22:26.040 --> 00:22:31.040 And that consideration for all new construction as well? 00:22:31.040 --> 00:22:33.040 Yes. 00:22:33.040 --> 00:22:37.040 Anybody have any remarks about that? 00:22:37.040 --> 00:22:42.040 I would suggest at the very least it sounds that both from the staff recommendation and 00:22:42.040 --> 00:22:46.040 from the conversation in this meeting that option three and four advancing those as a 00:22:46.040 --> 00:22:50.040 recommendation sounds like a good starting position. But I'd like a little more discussion 00:22:50.040 --> 00:22:55.040 over options one and two. 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 00:23:01.040 --> 00:23:09.040 in the presentation that options one and two, the evaluation itself is some of the numbers 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 00:23:16.040 --> 00:23:17.040 build anything. 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, 00:23:22.040 --> 00:23:28.040 allocating funds to have an engineering assessment done to these facilities that we as non-engineering 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 00:23:33.040 --> 00:23:38.040 back of yes, no, if yes, what is the cost of actually implementing with the construction? 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 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, 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 00:23:56.040 --> 00:23:57.040 like this. 00:23:57.040 --> 00:24:01.040 That is correct, yes. While I can't stand engineering drawings, the experience of facilities 00:24:01.040 --> 00:24:06.040 management, we can determine what is plausible and what should move forward with some planning 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 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 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 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. 00:24:27.040 --> 00:24:33.040 I do have one more question. So I basically, in agreement with these options three and 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 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 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 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 00:24:58.040 --> 00:25:03.040 for the higher-model car. Greg, it's almost inevitably going to be more expensive maybe 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 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 00:25:19.040 --> 00:25:23.040 or, you know what I mean? Yeah, absolutely. Can you walk us through that decision-making? 00:25:23.040 --> 00:25:28.040 So currently, the way the construction phases work is that the users of the facilities, 00:25:28.040 --> 00:25:32.040 I would say fleet services, has a building, and we determine what operational need is, 00:25:32.040 --> 00:25:37.040 and we propose a budget. We also bring in all of these other considerations of sustainability 00:25:37.040 --> 00:25:42.040 and the environmental impact, things of that nature, and build up one full design. If that 00:25:42.040 --> 00:25:47.040 design is over budget, we sit down collaboratively as a team with finance, capital projects, 00:25:47.040 --> 00:25:52.040 facilities, fleet services, and determine where can we start reducing the cost of this 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 00:25:57.040 --> 00:26:01.040 gardens? Is it removing solar but keeping wall gardens and having operational space? 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 00:26:05.040 --> 00:26:10.040 the operational goals and of course all the council priorities on building these new facilities. 00:26:10.040 --> 00:26:15.040 Well, what this does then is it guarantees that these are part of that conversation. 00:26:15.040 --> 00:26:20.040 Correct. Right. So basically you're saying there will be cost-benefit studies done with 00:26:20.040 --> 00:26:28.040 each project. Of course. Yeah. So do we need to give you an official declaration here? 00:26:28.040 --> 00:26:35.040 Yes. Okay. So are we all agreed on a combination of options three and four? 00:26:35.040 --> 00:26:40.040 Yes. If that's what you would like to see the city pursue. Thank you. 00:26:40.040 --> 00:26:43.040 Absolutely. Thank you for your time everybody. Thank you. Thank you. 00:26:49.040 --> 00:26:52.040 All right. Next on our agenda. 00:26:52.040 --> 00:27:02.040 Okay. So we need to vote on what we just agreed to. 00:27:02.040 --> 00:27:11.040 I move to advance the recommendation to approve options three and four as presented. 00:27:11.040 --> 00:27:19.040 All in favor? I second. Second. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Passes. 00:27:19.040 --> 00:27:22.040 Okay. Thank you. 00:27:22.040 --> 00:27:31.040 Now we have received a report and consider a recommendation to city council for adoption 00:27:31.040 --> 00:27:36.040 on the final draft of the Simply Sustainable Framework. 00:27:36.040 --> 00:27:41.040 I'll hand it over to Lisa back with us for this today. 00:27:41.040 --> 00:27:54.040 All right. Good afternoon committee members. My name is Lisa Amador. 00:27:54.040 --> 00:27:59.040 I work in environmental services and sustainability as the senior program coordinator. 00:27:59.040 --> 00:28:04.040 We're going to touch base again on the Simply Sustainable Framework draft. 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 00:28:13.040 --> 00:28:18.040 and receive feedback and go to some next steps. 00:28:18.040 --> 00:28:24.040 So just some background. The Simply Sustainable Plan was originally adopted in 2012 00:28:24.040 --> 00:28:29.040 with it being re-updated in 2020. 00:28:29.040 --> 00:28:35.040 We then created the Sustainability Framework Advisory Committee to help in assisting with implementing the plan. 00:28:35.040 --> 00:28:39.040 And the revision of the Simply Sustainable Framework happens every four to five years 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 00:28:44.040 --> 00:28:49.040 and a lot of the growth that we're experiencing in that. 00:28:49.040 --> 00:28:54.040 So some of the plans that were adopted following the 2020 Simply Sustainable Framework. 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, 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, 00:29:07.040 --> 00:29:10.040 whenever we created the draft for the Simply Sustainable Framework. 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. 00:29:14.040 --> 00:29:20.040 And we have a link under our belt with that. 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 00:29:24.040 --> 00:29:27.040 was providing a vision, guiding principles. 00:29:27.040 --> 00:29:30.040 We did get a mention of the Hazards and Vulnerability Risk Assessment, 00:29:30.040 --> 00:29:34.040 Greenhouse Gas and Mentory, Defining Renewable Generation, 00:29:34.040 --> 00:29:44.040 and then exploring incentives for battery storage, which staff did take into consideration. 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 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. 00:29:57.040 --> 00:30:01.040 And with that, I will take questions. 00:30:01.040 --> 00:30:03.040 Questions? 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. 00:30:25.040 --> 00:30:31.040 Are you requiring developers to incorporate green infrastructure? 00:30:31.040 --> 00:30:35.040 Are you on, okay, land use? 00:30:35.040 --> 00:30:38.040 You're on page 10, right? 00:30:38.040 --> 00:30:39.040 Yeah. 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. 00:30:45.040 --> 00:30:46.040 Encourage. 00:30:46.040 --> 00:30:48.040 Let's use the word encourage in this case. 00:30:48.040 --> 00:30:49.040 Yes, encourage, yes. 00:30:49.040 --> 00:30:50.040 All right. 00:30:50.040 --> 00:30:55.040 And to adopt this ecological-friendly practices. 00:30:55.040 --> 00:30:57.040 To explore those opportunities. 00:30:57.040 --> 00:31:06.040 All right, like green roofs, rain gardens, and permeable pavement, storm water. 00:31:06.040 --> 00:31:11.040 Those are going to be opportunities that we can have with discussions, with planning, 00:31:11.040 --> 00:31:14.040 on how they're looking at those things. 00:31:14.040 --> 00:31:20.040 So, we'll just explore opportunities to be able to encourage. 00:31:20.040 --> 00:31:23.040 All right, bear with me a little bit. 00:31:23.040 --> 00:31:25.040 It's a long document. 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. 00:31:30.040 --> 00:31:31.040 Goal 2. 00:31:31.040 --> 00:31:32.040 Mm-hmm. 00:31:32.040 --> 00:31:35.040 Yeah. 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. 00:31:44.040 --> 00:31:50.040 What is this? 00:31:50.040 --> 00:31:53.040 Denton Chill Street. 00:31:53.040 --> 00:31:58.040 So, that was included in the Denton Downtown Plan. 00:31:58.040 --> 00:32:04.040 They were looking at opportunities to have areas of downtown that would be well shaded. 00:32:04.040 --> 00:32:08.040 So, that was looked at within that plan, yes. 00:32:08.040 --> 00:32:10.040 All right. 00:32:10.040 --> 00:32:13.040 Thanks. 00:32:13.040 --> 00:32:14.040 Anyone else? 00:32:14.040 --> 00:32:16.040 No. 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? 00:32:26.040 --> 00:32:32.040 Can you explain to us what function does this serve? 00:32:32.040 --> 00:32:34.040 Is it helpful? 00:32:34.040 --> 00:32:36.040 Like, when does it get taken up? 00:32:36.040 --> 00:32:40.040 You know, can you kind of shed light on -- there's all these plans. 00:32:40.040 --> 00:32:41.040 Right. 00:32:41.040 --> 00:32:48.040 Practically, when it comes time, we're making decisions about new construction and all this stuff. 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. 00:32:55.040 --> 00:32:58.040 Like, does it really come into play, is what I'm wondering. 00:32:58.040 --> 00:33:02.040 Is there more we can do to make it effective, I guess? 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. 00:33:10.040 --> 00:33:15.040 But this also comes into play when we're having conversations with other internal departments. 00:33:15.040 --> 00:33:18.040 You know, we talk to them about what they're already doing. 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. 00:33:23.040 --> 00:33:25.040 Those are conversations that we're already having with them. 00:33:25.040 --> 00:33:29.040 So, they have it top of mind that, hey, we're working on this. 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? 00:33:32.040 --> 00:33:34.040 You know, what do we want to accomplish? 00:33:34.040 --> 00:33:37.040 So, we do have those conversations with them. 00:33:37.040 --> 00:33:40.040 So, it's also, I guess, I wouldn't say a responsibility. 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. 00:33:47.040 --> 00:33:49.040 And then we all have the same goal in mind. 00:33:49.040 --> 00:33:50.040 Okay, that's interesting. 00:33:50.040 --> 00:33:53.040 So, it's coming up in these internal departmental meetings? 00:33:53.040 --> 00:33:54.040 Yes, yes. 00:33:54.040 --> 00:33:55.040 Okay. 00:33:55.040 --> 00:33:56.040 Thank you. 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, 00:34:00.040 --> 00:34:03.040 that we're having those conversations ahead of time, too. 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. 00:34:09.040 --> 00:34:13.040 So, upper management. 00:34:13.040 --> 00:34:19.040 Last time we got a staff recommendation. 00:34:19.040 --> 00:34:21.040 I didn't see one here. 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. 00:34:28.040 --> 00:34:31.040 So, I guess that's implied in the language. 00:34:31.040 --> 00:34:36.040 But from y'all's perspective, this is, how's this looking? 00:34:36.040 --> 00:34:39.040 Can I ask that question? 00:34:39.040 --> 00:34:47.040 Well, it's, we don't have a do nothing option for our recommendation. 00:34:47.040 --> 00:34:51.040 Consider recommending it to the city council. 00:34:51.040 --> 00:34:52.040 Okay. 00:34:52.040 --> 00:34:55.040 Thank you. 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, 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. 00:35:06.040 --> 00:35:10.040 They do seem to be kind of off scheduled conversations. 00:35:10.040 --> 00:35:15.040 I am curious for, since we're talking about this plan or considering recommending this plan, 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, 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. 00:35:32.040 --> 00:35:33.040 Yeah. 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, 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. 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, 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. 00:36:02.040 --> 00:36:03.040 Yes. 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. 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. 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. 00:36:24.040 --> 00:36:28.040 I think that could be a really rich conversation going forward. 00:36:28.040 --> 00:36:33.040 Does anyone have anything to add? 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. 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. 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. 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. 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, 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. 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. 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, 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. 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. 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. 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. 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, 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. 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. 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. 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... 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. 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? 00:41:36.040 --> 00:41:42.040 So you would, the procedure is you would ask for a motion on the agenda item. 00:41:42.040 --> 00:41:53.040 Okay, do I have a motion on the agenda item? 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. 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. 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. 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. 00:43:03.040 --> 00:43:09.040 I like it as it is, but I'm fine with these changes. 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. 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? 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. 00:43:53.040 --> 00:43:55.040 How many are in favor? 00:43:55.040 --> 00:43:56.040 Do we need a second? 00:43:56.040 --> 00:43:57.040 What? 00:43:57.040 --> 00:43:58.040 Do we need a second? 00:43:58.040 --> 00:43:59.040 I second. 00:43:59.040 --> 00:44:00.040 Will you second? 00:44:00.040 --> 00:44:01.040 How many in favor? 00:44:01.040 --> 00:44:04.040 Aye. 00:44:04.040 --> 00:44:07.040 Opposed? 00:44:07.040 --> 00:44:09.040 It's good, it's good. 00:44:09.040 --> 00:44:12.040 Passes. 00:44:12.040 --> 00:44:20.040 Anything else we need to do? 00:44:20.040 --> 00:44:39.040 Thank you for the presentation. 00:44:39.040 --> 00:45:00.040 All right, next we have staff reports. 00:45:00.040 --> 00:45:03.040 I was curious as to the size. 00:45:03.040 --> 00:45:14.040 I don't think that was mentioned in the acreage. 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. 00:45:42.040 --> 00:45:47.040 Any other comments on that? 00:45:47.040 --> 00:45:48.040 Thank you, Kathy. 00:45:48.040 --> 00:45:49.040 You're welcome. 00:45:49.040 --> 00:45:51.040 And then we also have the matrix. 00:45:51.040 --> 00:46:02.040 Anybody have anything you want to add to the matrix? 00:46:02.040 --> 00:46:03.040 I have something. 00:46:03.040 --> 00:46:04.040 Okay. 00:46:04.040 --> 00:46:17.040 I would like to initiate discussions on having a new value of solar study done. 00:46:17.040 --> 00:46:38.040 In combination, in regards to our discussion about the plan, the Simply Sustainable Framework Plan. 00:46:38.040 --> 00:46:40.040 Any other comments? 00:46:40.040 --> 00:46:46.040 I do have a question regarding the structure of the matrix, if I can. 00:46:46.040 --> 00:46:54.040 Our previous formatting had included a pending date scheduled when the item would be presented. 00:46:54.040 --> 00:46:59.040 That was really helpful to kind of think about when those conversations would occur. 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. 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. 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, 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. 00:47:43.040 --> 00:47:47.040 Any other comments? 00:47:47.040 --> 00:47:51.040 Okay, with that, we shall adjourn. 00:47:51.040 --> 00:47:54.040 Do I have a motion to adjourn? 00:47:54.040 --> 00:47:55.040 I move to adjourn. 00:47:55.040 --> 00:47:57.040 Second to that motion. 00:47:57.040 --> 00:47:59.040 All in favor of adjourning? 00:47:59.040 --> 00:48:00.040 Aye. 00:48:00.040 --> 00:48:02.040 Thank you very much.