 I'd like to call the July 15th, 2020 Longmont Sustainability Advisory Board meeting to order. Can we start with the roll call? Yes. And if the board members would please show their cameras so all of the board members will be visibly present, that would be super. So I have Kay Volmeyer, Cody Flagg, Mary Lynn, and here and Jim Metcalf. And we are missing Kate Collardson and Violetta Manukian today. They both emailed and said they would not be able to join us today. So we have Kay stepping in as the chair for this meeting. That staff members, Lisa Knobloff, Annie Noble. Here. Brancy Jaffe. Here. Berenice Garcia-Teles. Here. Tim Ellis. Here. And Heather McIntyre. And our city council liaison, Polly Christensen. Here. All right, Kay. All right, do we have a quorum? We do have a quorum. All right. So I guess do we want to approve the minutes from last month's meeting? I will move to approve the minutes from last month's meeting. Second that. Second that. All in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. I wasn't there, so. OK. All right. And then it sounds like we didn't have any public that wanted to be heard or do we? We did not have anybody wishing to comment, so. OK. All right, so agenda revisions and submission of documents. Do you have anything that you'd like to bring up that's not on the agenda already? The staff members? No. All right, so on to general business. We're just cruising today. It's good. I've got things to do. No. Baseball. So review and discuss the Climate Action Task Force recommendations. I'm excited about this one. Is that Lisa? Are you going to lead us through this? Yes, I am. Ellen. Great. All right. Well, we're going to just go ahead and jump right in. We have a lot to cover. So Heather, if you'll pull up the presentation, that would be great. And while she does that, I'm going to apologize to you. Oh, my dad is in surgery right now, and so I'm a little distracted, and I'm going to keep my eye on my phone. So it's not going to be offended if I'm looking at my phone or seem like I'm doing something else, but I just want to check in to make sure he's coming out within the next hour or so. So if I need to, I'll pass it off to Fran. So we are going to jump in. You can go ahead and advance to the next slide. So as you all know, we took the Climate Action Task Force recommendations to council over two sessions, June 30th and July 7th, and we went through all of the recommendations with them. And now we're bringing it to the relevant boards to go through the recommendations with you all and get your feedback to bring that back to council for further discussion. So this is just a review. You all got the report. It's 156 pages. I'm sure you all read it cover to cover with great enthusiasm. There's a ton of great information in there. There's a lot of resources. The main part of the document is not nearly that long, but this is just an overview of everything that the report itself covers. So you can go to the next slide. The topic areas, which you've mentioned to you before, this is determined by the Climate Action Task Force, so adaptation and resiliency, building energies, education and outreach, land use and waste management, renewable energy and transportation. And then the Climate Action Task Force also identified equity as a key component within climate action, but rather than have it called out in its own section, they wanted to have it integrated really throughout all of the recommendations. And also that'll become clear when Francie gets into talking a little bit more about the work that they did with the Just Transition Plan Committee and their recommendations for equity as well. Next slide. So this piece is, we're titling it governance. I think that that terminology has given people some confusion, but essentially we did talk with the Climate Action Task Force about what their thoughts were on what should happen to the report and the recommendations now that they're completed to make sure that they move forward and it's not just an exercise. We did this great. Now these recommendations sit somewhere. But what happens, who has some oversight and accountability in terms of making sure that things actually get put into place and that we're making progress, as long as that we would? And so their recommendation was that that piece get incorporated into the Sustainability Advisory Board, which I think we've all kind of talked about a little bit, so that it would be within the purview of this board to look at the progress and reporting and implementation of Climate Action recommendations. And then separately to form ad hoc technical committees. So this wouldn't be attached to the Sustainability Advisory Board, but when we get into implementation of specific recommendations that we could pull together volunteer technical committees that could help with specific aspects of those recommendations, as well as incorporating the recommendations into existing plans such as the Council Work Plan to help further institutionalize the Climate Action work. Next slide. We did our best to do some community engagement during this process. We were able to complete some activities that we have listed here. I think you all were familiar at least with the questionnaire and some of the other things. And then obviously COVID happened and pretty much all of our community engagement efforts got put on hold as city facilities got shut down and we were no longer able to do any in-person outreach, but we were able to get some stuff done. Next slide. And out of the things that we were able to do, we had some key takeaways. So from the questionnaire, there was pretty strong support. So we had not quite 400 responses to the questionnaire. There is good support for Climate Action in general for incentives and changes that the city might make to support Climate Action. There's a lot of support in particular for increasing services and benefits for low-income communities and particularly addressing the issue of affordability. And kind of the flip side of that, there was also some concern about the cost to the city and the impact to affordability and really making sure that we understand that as we implement Climate Action measures and the lack of stakeholder engagement. And the limitations really, again, as you all know, we are working under a pretty fast timeline to begin with. That makes it really hard to do community engagement, but then also with the impact from COVID on top of that, just really, I think, fed that lack of stakeholder engagement because it made it hard for us to really get broad representation as much as we would have wanted to. The format of the questionnaire was a little bit constrained in terms of it forced people to rank their preferences around recommendations and it didn't keep people the option to say, I don't like any of these recommendations at all. And then again, just limited in terms of the voices that we know where we're not able to participate in this process. Next slide. So I'm going to jump into the topic area recommendations and how we're going to do this. Actually, you can go to the next slide too. Is we're going to review each topic area and the recommendations within each topic area. And then we're going to ask you all to essentially give us a vote on each recommendation of thumbs up, thumbs side, or thumbs down. And then collectively have a collective vote from the sustainability advisory board on each recommendation. So we can take that to council and essentially say, the board approves moving this recommendation forward or rejects this recommendation and then we'll have some comments to go along with that. So we're going to go one topic area at a time. And as I'm going through the recommendations, feel free to holler if you have any questions of clarification. Otherwise, let me get through the recommendations on each side first and then, you know, we'll go through kind of our voting process. And hopefully that should become pretty clear as we do that. So adaptation and resiliency, even though the majority of the recommendations are focused on greenhouse gas reductions. So what we call mitigation, as you all know, the adaptation piece is really, is going to be really critical. So even if Longmont were to achieve 100% reductions of our emissions by 2030, we know that there's already things in place and we're likely going to have some significant climate change impacts, particularly around things like extreme heat, more extreme heat days and things like that. And we need to be able to prepare our community for those impacts. So when it's focused on public health and developing a coalition to identify issues and solutions for impacts of a warming climate on public health, so heat waves, severe weather events, air quality issues, and potentially looking at new diseases that might emerge with a specific focus on the needs of low income households and residents experiencing homelessness and folks that we know are going to be most vulnerable to those impacts. And so that's looking at putting a plan together over the next year and a half or so on how we would address those issues moving forward. The second one is water conservation and looking at preparing the city for potential sustained drought conditions and impacts to water availability due to climate change and promoting and incentivizing water conservation measures like zero scaping and the use of native vegetation. The goal is reducing water consumption city-wide by 35 to 40% by 2025. So that's a pretty ambitious goal that would require pretty extensive financial resources and likely a significant redesign of our parks and golf courses in order to meet that goal. And we would really need to do a lot more research and analysis to understand the full fiscal impacts and identify a feasible path for implementation for to reach that goal. And then the last one is focusing on launching a public education and outreach campaign that targets residents and commercial realtors to help inform them of the dangers of flooding and the value in investing in flood mitigation projects. So this isn't necessarily getting to the level of infrastructure and engineering. It's more focused on outreach and education around flood preparedness and mitigation. Are there any clarifying questions that people have on any of these recommendations before those? All right, great. So, oh, was there somebody? I guess I can only see Jim. So like Jim's checking that, I'm like, all right, we're good to go. Okay, did anyone have any clarifying questions if they needed anything? I wouldn't say clarifying questions. I guess I'll say, I would say as flood mitigation prepared as like on that point is, I wanna say how necessary is it, is there a lot of people who are not paying attention to this? Or is there people who are like, listen, I don't wanna redo the river because I don't understand why making it wider and taking the trees out? Yeah, there's still, especially as we've been going through the Resilience St. Graham Project through the flood mitigation after the 2013 flood. I think there's still a lot of folks that just don't understand what's happening along the river corridor and how that's changing the floodplain and our ability to develop or not develop within that. So this came out of some of the folks that worked directly in that. So I'm not as involved in that, but I trust that if they're identifying that as a need, that's a need. So any other clarifying questions? Yeah. I just have a question about the voting. So it's gonna be thumbs up and sideways, thumbs down. But these three things here seem like they're gonna require very different amounts of work and input. And is it like a zero sum game where we have to balance everything or is it just really just weeding out things that we don't think are worth effort? Yeah, so it's definitely not a zero sum game and part of this whole process moving forward in terms of our getting feedback from the boards and then further discussion with council is looking at, one, are there any recommendations that we just decide don't make any sense and we don't wanna pursue those and you can make comments on that. And then two, how do we then prioritize the recommendations that we do wanna pursue based on what's feasible, what's the cost impact, what's gonna have the most greenhouse gas impact or the most beneficial community impact or those sorts of things. So that's sort of the next stage in the process is figuring out how we move forward. And so the thumbs up is like, we approve it as written, we're good to go, nothing. The thumbs side is, yeah, we approve it, but maybe we feel like we need more information or this one is missing this thing that we wanna provide some additional comments on and then thumbs down is really like, nope, we don't think this makes sense or it's not achieving the goals or whatever. Yeah. I was gonna say too, so I started skimming. The full document did not necessarily get far but there are some details like the public health that this is, there's a huge piece of equity in this just as a consideration when you are voting, I guess, that there's a huge piece of equity in this public health plan is it looks actually, when I look at even just the summary description of it, identifying issues and solutions for a warming client with a specific focus on the needs of low income houses or households and residents experiencing homelessness. So like detection, surveillance treatment and diseases, it goes, I feel like it goes a lot more in depth than this one sentence just to let everybody know who's voting. And so I'm like, all right, if you don't mind, I'll just go really slow on my votes and page on the other screen. No, I'll try to go fast, but I think I can get this. I will say that water conservation is gonna be tough unless you wanna let me put in a gray water system. Well, let's go, if everyone's good, let's start going with the voting and then you can drop in comments for each recommendation as you all have, okay? Yeah, as Kate said, there's a lot of supporting documentation for each of these in the document itself. So let's start with the first one. I wanna make sure I can see if I can't see all of you, but so public health, everyone, if you wanna show me your thumbs, thumbs up, thumbs side, thumbs down, I see one, two. Sorry, are we just, are we voting yes on the, okay. We're voting if we like it or not. Thumbs up, thumbs side or thumbs down? So thumbs up is you approve it, written as is, good to go, thumbs side is, you approve it, but you have some additional comments and thumbs down as well, okay, so yeah. I'm gonna say disclaimer, I read the summary, not the full effect, but I like it. Okay, Steve, Jim, hold your keeper thumbs up, as I gotta make sure I see Jim, okay, thumbs up, Mary, thumbs side, Toby, thumbs up. Am I missing somebody? No, there's only four of us. There's only four of us. Oh, there's only four, sorry, I thought there were five. Our votes count double today. Great, okay, so we have three thumbs up and a thumbs side. So Mary, let us know what your comments are for thumbs side. My comment for all of these points is going to be the same, which is, do we have examples of municipalities that are actually, that have similar goals that are actually meeting those goals? And I would like to see the specificity of how that's being done. I did read the plan, but there are certain things like carbon neutrality, well, that I, I haven't seen a definition of actually reaching that, but it makes sense to me. And I haven't seen examples of cities where I think they're actually meeting those goals. And I would like to see what the specifics of examples of example cities before I can say that I think that these things are reasonable. All right, and I should have mentioned this. Francie, while we're doing this is capturing all of these things. And then at the end, she'll pull up the document where she's captured everybody's comments and votes and we'll make sure you guys are good to go Okay, water conservation, thumbs, okay, lots of thumbs side. Okay, what are your thumbs up? I'm gonna go with, yeah, I'll go with the big thumbs. Okay. I like Jim. Okay, so thumbs side folks. Jim, tell me about your thumbs side. I guess for me, the goal seems a little bit arbitrary. And I am fully in support of programs that are going to reduce water consumption and prepare us for a drought. I just don't know if targeting a 40% reduction in the next four years is going to create workable strategies that are going to be well accepted and sustainable. Okay. Okay. I'm right there on everything he just said. I think it's a, I want to say the goal itself I think is unachievable by 2025. I also don't know if that's a 40% for the city reduction or a 40% individual reduction. And I didn't want that in depth, but if you know the answer to that, let me know. Citywide. Citywide. Okay. So we're gonna have, we're having population growth, increased housing and increased, I mean, I think it's, I think, I think you can hire me to help you. No, I'm just kidding out. You can't, especially not saying that, but no, I think it's a tough goal to meet. And just even that a couple of years ago we decided we could finally have one rain barrel for households. And here we're talking 40% reduction. And I think it's, I think, I don't think you're gonna see 40% reduction by changing a building code to a low flow toilet. So. Mary, tell me about your thumb side. Thanks, Lisa. Um, it's going to be very difficult to achieve such a significant reduction in a marketplace where other cities aren't making as ambitious goals. People who don't like it will simply move in order to make a transition that's so dramatic, you have to have an educated populace that's staying put. They have to stay put long enough to be educated. And there has to be a significant equity component that again, I keep bringing up gray water and the fact that with COVID there's been a surge in people putting in their own gardens. Why are we making it easier for people to use the water that's available to them in a way that's most efficient rather than having to flush that water and have it be recycled and then sent back to them, which takes resources. Why can't people just gray water to grow their own garden and to use their water more efficiently? It's even more efficient buying your food trucked in from California or from Arizona. So I think that it's unrealistic. And again, I would like to see an example of a similar city or region that has a similar turnover in residency, similar amount of budgeting for means of education that's achieving those goals. And I'd like to know what the techniques are that they're using. And again, I wanna put gray water back on the table. I think it's an important issue for us to reconsider. I will say if you told me I could do gray water I'd have a system in by the end of next weekend. I think I said that in the last meeting, Lisa, okay. I think I said something similar. Okay, great. So moving on to the last one, flood mitigation and preparedness education. Thumbs, thumbs side, thumbs side. I think we're good on this one. Thumbs side. Okay, Cody, tell me about your thumbs side. One of the things, there's a lot of work that was done here, obviously. One of the shortcomings I think of the document is that there hasn't been any clear prioritization or framework to link all of these different goals together. I understand maybe that's where our board comes in. So I just think there are maybe more achievable or more ambitious goals in here that the city council could focus on. All right, Kay, you have thumbs side, thumbs down. I kind of want to go thumbs side, thumbs down. And I think that the reasoning in here is, sorry, coming from an industry standpoint, information is available to developers. I don't think it's the city's responsibility to pay to educate developers. I also, when you look around town even at parks there are several locations where we have the Resilience St. Brain Plan like on a billboard at a park where it's just really cool to look at it and watch how, where the damage was from the flood and what's going on. I see flood mitigation preparedness as an emergency management issue. And not that the public shouldn't be made aware of emergency management issues, but I also look and say we did, we had a 500 year flood we are making, you're working along the route and making repairs, but at this point it's, I guess I don't understand, I guess I look and say to what kind of presentations and what kind of education we're looking for. And again, if it's going towards developers, maybe it's to homeowners, but I looked at that and say, insurance companies should be doing that sort of thing. And like I said, developers should know that or they have the money to go find that without the city putting for the resource. Just to clarify, specifically says that targets residents and commercial realtors in the online community. And I look and go, I don't mind the residents, but I guess I, and maybe this is just, I mean, I have a decent, I have an understanding of it. So to me, I'm kind of like, oh, what do people need to know? And I think that's the thing, I don't know what people need to know and I don't understand what they need to know. But again, yeah, commercial realtors, I look and say they should know already or they can, I'm not very much into supporting commercial realtors and developers, like just on hand. They generally, they're generally a grouping that has funding of their own. Okay. I mean, nothing against them. They're great. They support economy, they support growth, but. Okay, Jim, what was your thumb side? So I think for me, it's just a matter of priorities and what climate change problems will be the biggest priorities for people living in Longmont. I think that there are places where flooding increases are gonna be one of the significant hazards. The fact that we had the big floods in 2013 means that a lot of long-term residents have a, kind of already have a heightened sense of awareness about flooding. I think a lot of the city actually isn't, you know, flood zone anyways. And I think that just in terms of the things that are gonna be happening in the next five years, because of five, 10, 20 years, because of climate change, it's just not gonna crack my, this needs to be a priority for us list. Okay, thanks. So before we move on, Mary, did you have anything like you wanted to add? I think that what I'm hearing and what I'm also feeling and the board can tell me if I'm summing up correctly is that this seems to be an issue of proportion. That's an issue that's specific to Longmont and it has to do with, perhaps changes that have to do with climate, but it doesn't seem to be on the same scale as public health and water conservation. And I'm wondering why it's, you know, sort of listed on the same, at the same scale. Can I just say a joke real quick? If you're following along and voting out the fly, I found the more detailed section like starting at page 40, 43. There's a target's bullet points that they don't really talk about developers in this section. So it's mostly property owners. It's helpful. Okay, so we're gonna move to the next slide. So buildings and they're building energy use. Just before we do that, we had, I just wanted to double check since everyone made comments, is that one approve as written, two approve with noted consideration and one thumbs down or was that three thumbs down? One side thumbs down. Leave me as a thumbs side, just because I'll honestly say I didn't get into the dirt in detail yet. So I don't wanna all out say no when I really need to do better homework. Thank you. All right, so building energy use. We have a number of ones to get through. So try to move through pretty quick. But again, ask me if you have any clarifying questions. So the first is focusing on building codes. And as you guys probably know, long months actually really good about adopting and implementing the most recent building code as they come through every cycle. So it's every three years. The international code is updated and we adopt and implement that. This is looking at expanding that to add solar and EV readiness, energy star appliances and electric heaters and hot water heater provisions in the next code cycle, which starts in 2021. Electrification, there's been a lot of confusion around this one. So I do wanna make sure that this is clear that this is not looking at mandating electrification in the next 18 months. That seems like that's been a misinterpretation of this one here. It's focusing on pulling together a feasibility committee to oversee the development of a plan over the next 18 months. And that plan would identify a phased in approach to transition away from natural gas over the next 10 to 15 years or so. So what would happen over the next 18 months is the development of a plan show a path forward to transitioning away from natural gas. Commercial building benchmarking. I think that folks from LPC have talked to this group about this before probably last year or some time. So commercial energy benchmarking is a program essentially where you evaluate the energy use of a given building and evaluate against other buildings of the same size and type. And it's an education based program but that has been shown to pretty significantly impact energy use. As it says by up to 7% by 2025. So it's somewhere around, I'm not quite 2% per year in energy savings, which can be pretty substantial. Commercial energy efficiency rebates. So that's pretty much just expanding our existing energy or efficiency works program to include more folks in that program. Same with the residential efficiency works. It's just expanding participation in that program. Expanding the low income residential energy efficiency program. So that's the same thing, expanding our existing program. This one is pretty substantial. So currently we've been serving about 40 homes per year and this program just started in 2017. And this is looking at ramping that up to 400 homes per year by 2025. So that would be a pretty substantial increase in that program and associated resources. And then establishing a climate action bunch program and staff. So that would be looking at where can we pull in additional funds through grants and through other revenue sources to establish a fund specifically to help low and moderate income residents and businesses as we implement climate action measures that might have an impact on rates or any other sort of cost impacts that we want to mitigate, again, that impact to affordability. So we'll run through the voting on these ones, starting with building codes. Thumbs down, are there any questions that people have before we do thumbs? Okay, so thumbs down. Okay, thumbs up, thumbs side. And then see Jim, where'd you go? Okay, thumbs back. So Jim, tell me about your thumbs side. I think that, again, these are, I actually don't have a problem with solar ready provisions and energy star rated appliances. I think the sticking point for me is dealing with electric heating systems right now. I think that even if everybody in Longmont switched over to electric heating, the amount of energy that would be spent doing that and our sources of electricity for now I have a hard time with that one as things stand right now. And I think that that's a policy that has worked very well in places that don't have winters. But I worry that it is unrealistic right now, but more importantly, I think that we could save similar amounts of greenhouse emissions with other incentives or other approaches that would be probably a lot less expensive. Okay, thanks. Chase? I'm right on board with Jim again. I look to say, yes, if you like computers, hot water, heaters, that means if mine goes out that's my only choice to buy it. I don't have the pricing on it. So for residents, it's just, it could be an extra cost that folks aren't ready for. Again, yes, the whole electric power grid, what's the capacity, my power goes out in the summertime when it's super hot and everyone's running an air conditioner what happens in the winter and we're all depending on that to heat our homes. And now we've got blocks going down for stressed grid. So, and again, I look at building homes as a way to advance sustainability but they do also, it does put a burden on builders, on folks who are replacing equipment, that sort of thing too. And so, there's a plus, there's always, there's also a stress to it. So, I guess that's my side. And Mary, you have thumbs down. Tell me about your thumbs down. Yes, I love the idea of conserving energy and being as sustainable and renewable as we can. However, the city's making its electricity using what coal at this point. And it's, is that correct? We belong to- Not all of it. Okay, a considerable amount of it. I think there's an equity issue in requiring the consumer to go to all electric when there are cheaper options out there. And I think it's both a marketplace and an equity issue. And additionally, it's a stress on businesses. I don't think that we should be doing anything at this point that's going to make things more difficult for the small businesses, which are not the primary employers in Longmont but a very, very strong component of the employment in Longmont. And I think I'm in full agreement of what James and Kay have said as well. Next one is the electrification. Again, this is just looking at developing a committee to oversee a plan to identify how we could transition. Again, those affordability pieces, I think are going to be critical, but show me thumbs up, thumbs side, thumbs down for the developing a plan. Thumbs up, thumbs up, thumbs side, thumbs up. Okay, Mary, tell me about your thumbs side. As I've stated, I don't think that electrification as a goal is really a fair reasonable goal when the city is not using the proportion of renewables and yet that's being pushed onto the customer who may be wanting to use natural gas while the city is still using coal. And I also believe it's a choice issue. And if the wording of this was to look at whether or not it is feasible to go to electrification, I would be more in favor of it. I just, one thing I will say, I think that a lot of the discussion of electrification should be in the context of the already existing plan for long months electricity to be carbon neutral by what, is it 2030? 2030. Right, so that's a plan that we're already ahead of schedule on, so. Yeah, we're about 50% renewable now. Mm-hmm. Great, okay, commercial building, thumbs up. But I still have a comment on this one. Okay. Mary, go ahead. My comment is, how are we doing with, I mean, we are in Colorado, we are a classically ideal place to help with new construction using passive solar, passive thermal and geothermal. And I'd like to know how much we are working with developers, the building code, education to bring those ideas forward to developers. Great. Okay, moving on to the next one, increasing participation in commercial efficiency program. Oh, of course, my thumb. Oh, thumbs up. Okay, great. Same for residential. Okay, Cody, tell me about your thumbs up. I just, I think the targets need to be a little more aggressive. Just the 400 homes per year over eight years, just not even a quarter of long months was initial housing, so maybe more. Yeah, bigger numbers, I know that's gonna cost more, but yeah. Okay, great. And then the low income energy efficiency. Oh, guide, Mary, tell me about your thumbs side. I'm concerned about mandated electrification for the reasons expressed earlier in this session. Okay, so this one is not talking about electrification, this is just energy efficiency. For low income. Are we on seven? Six. Six, sorry, no, that's a thumbs up, sorry. Okay, great. Now seven, yes. And also just the clarification, so again, I didn't write these, this is from the task force. we currently don't have any mandated electrification goal. Okay, well it does that in the seven, so. I know, yep, but I do want to clarify it, so. But seven, okay, show me your thumbs for establishing a climate action fund. Up, up, up, okay, so Mary in your comment is about the electrification. The equity issues of mandated electrification. Perfect, okay, moving on, great. So education and outreach, these ones are pretty straightforward. Most of them are focused on the direct education through a couple of different mechanisms. The one sort of probably bigger outliers the comprehensive workforce development. So that's the first one. That's really understanding how if we want to achieve a lot of these things, we really need to train up a local workforce to help us get there. And currently I think we have one contractor to view weatherization work in town. So we have some pretty significant limitations in terms of workforce. And this one obviously is something that is also now particularly relevant in the ties to COVID and the impact to jobs and economics as a part from the pandemic. The second one is looking at developing a climate lecture series and working with the museum in educating and engaging the public in climate issues and solutions. The third one pretty similar, but looking at an article series. So a number of different articles also focused on climate change and issues and solutions. The Longmont Museum Teaching exhibit. So if those of you that are familiar with the Front Range Rising, that's an existing exhibit at the museum that draws a lot of folks of all ages but is particularly focused on elementary school students and looking at expanding that to incorporate climate change and particular energy use into that as well. And then the last is developing a community sustainability liaison program. So that would be like a neighborhood based kind of ambassador program and training folks on sustainability issues that then can be ambassadors within their communities to teach their friends and neighbors about sustainability issues, connect them with programs and resources and things like that. So voting, we'll start with the first one, comprehensive workforce development. I'm for it, I just have one quick question. Sure, yep. How have you assessed demand? Demand for what? For these trained green jobs individuals. Individuals trained in these green jobs. I think that would be part of the process of figuring this out as we get into this in terms of what are the biggest needs based particularly on some of the other recommendations that we're talking about. And then we'd have to really work with our local economic development partners and educational institutions to understand kind of how we match up what the demand might be with populations to engage in workforce development. And are these, and these would be open market trainings. So anybody could get trained in this and then they would work as a private contractor or as a private business providing these services? That hasn't been developed yet in terms of what those specifics would be. Okay, cause I mean, it sounds to me like, I mean, I worked at a college that does this that trains people to be sustainability assessors and coordinators and so forth. And there's a lot of people out there maybe all that's needed is a good marketing program to attract those people to long run. Yeah, so part of that would be looking first at understanding what existing programs and opportunities already exist and then building off of that to see what else is needed. So we would look pretty heavily to existing partners within the community and the region to understand what's needed. Or even nationwide, I mean, they may exist. They just need to be marketed to bring here. So I would say that one would, I would strongly suggest that it's reworded to assess the marketplace need and then find out how to bring those people here without pushing forward the idea that we're going to do green jobs training here, maybe redundant. Really, really quick, Mary. I'd say it's not necessarily to solicit and bring those people here, but I think I see this as front-line community college offering more courses and offering to your programs even in installation and maintenance and kind of that I want to say, when I think of the oil and gas industry that's out in Weld County that's taking a little decline right now and there's 300,000 people employed in Colorado or the area even when you look at going from pumpers to the folks who work for the oil companies to contractors like electricians that do the installs and equipments to concrete guys, all that and I look at that and say when that industry is gone because this is going to be pushing that out, we need those people to transition into the green job and find a way to attract them to do so as opposed to just going to California or whatever state there is a great, I'm sure there's great college programs where we've got lead engineers and assessors. I hear what you're saying, Kay, but it still sounds to me like that's a marketing issue that's putting the cart before the horse to say we're going to develop these jobs without having assessed the market need for them. I guess it's clear though that the market is going to be increasing, right? Like if Longmont wants to have carbon neutral energy by 2030, if we want to do all of these things it's going to require a lot of people. So I agree that we don't want to create more, we don't want to have a glut of trained solar panel installers, right? That would be a bad thing and a waste of money. But I do think that like the existing sustainability plan, I think does outline a lot of things that we're going to need a lot of people to do that I'm certainly not qualified to do. Okay, I want to tell you that Longmont would need to have its own training program, that's all I'm saying. I think we should look at nationwide supply of those jobs. All right, so moving on to the next one, the climate lecture series. No, actually I have one comment on this. I'll go sideways. Sorry, I had myself on mute. Cody, tell me about your thumb side. I think these next few items are kind of just like echo chamber for two signaling type activities that people that we're trying to reach are not going to be reached by these sorts of series. So I think the effort could be spent elsewhere. Mary? I agree with Cody, that was my first thought, but then I asked myself, why be cynical? We could always do a better job of making a video about these things than other folks and do a better job of marketing it to the community. But I do have a very big concern, which is that I'm concerned that we continue to focus on carbon when there are so many climate issues. I don't know if folks here are familiar with Charles Eisenstein. He's the most, one of the most notable, most prominent sort of on the left climate philosophers. And he has written some very provocative essays about why we're short changing ourselves by focusing on carbon and how that actually fits corporate agendas, which aren't beneficial to us. And if anyone is interested, I'd be happy to send you links to some thought-provoking information on. And points of view on why we should be using language that's broader than carbon. Okay. Oh, I went from being so positive to sort of deciding that I should be a little cynical for the reason that Cody said is that... Cody, you're a bad influence. No, but I changed my thumb before he spoke. And again, it is that, I'll say, I'll give the museum a thumbs up when we get there. But yeah, for the same reason on the three that he said, there is a group that really cares about climate change and those who don't are not going to be as participatory in it. And articles in climate series, they're just not going to go watch the movie. Mind you, the Community Sustainability we have is on program. I'm feeling a little more positive about that because that's that one-on-one interaction where it's your neighbor talking to you about it and it can be a small step or a big step. So, yeah, so I decided I'm going to go sideways and be cynical on the next couple. I would actually just like to say one thing. I'm actually, I don't mind signaling good virtues. And so virtue signaling is not detrimental from my point of view, but I think that for me with all of these things, the group that we're actually targeting are young people in Longmont. I think that the climate lecture series gives people an idea of careers and things they can do with their lives to study climate. Like I understand that there are plenty of people in Longmont who are never going to pay attention and never going to read these things. But the times that I've gone to public lectures, the one of the largest groups there are people in kind of high school, middle school, and late elementary school. And so I see all of these things as being positive resources for those people. And so for me, I totally agree. I'm not going to try to change my cousin's mind, but my nephew I think is free game. Well, you just changed my mind. As I said, does anyone want to change their vote after that? I do, I do, I have this issue. I have a 23-year-old that, you know. It is marketing, but I think this is what we're trying to do is we're trying to market that climate change is a big issue. There are scientists. Celebrate on TikTok. Well, but there are scientists who are doing really cutting edge research on it and doing really interesting stuff. It's true, everything about it isn't settled, but it's also something that is open that there's a lot of interesting science being done on it. And we can humanize the people doing that science instead of just being the big baddies. And so- Okay, so I'm going to do one more vote on this one in case people want to change their vote. I think it's- I'm going back to positive, Cody. Sorry. I just wanted to say we should be including other than carbon. I think we're limiting ourselves in a negative in a way that's going to harm us in the future. Okay. The article series, Thumbs. Okay, Cody, same for the side? Same thing. Okay. I hear you're coming from Jim, but historically young people don't vote. They don't show up. So that's the cynic in me. Burn, okay, we're not going to go there. All right. So number four, the teaching exhibit, Thumbs. Again, please include other than carbon. Okay, and I don't think this one specifically says it's just focusing on carbon. Then five, the sustainability liaison program. I think that's a good idea. Jim, side, okay. Tell me about your- I'm interested again. Well, I mean, I think that to me, it's just a matter of numbers. I mean, I think it's great that we could have sustainability. I don't have a problem with the idea of sustainability liaisons, but I also know that 12 hours talking to a neighbor, is a significant amount of time. And I'm not necessarily sure that, I don't know. I guess I'm not, yeah, I'm halfway. I'm not against it. I just, I kind of wonder about it being something that sounds like a neat idea that we're going to do, but in the end is really only going to reach a few people. Okay. Okay, moving on to the next slide. I'm a good son here. So land use and waste management, there's only three in this section. And I know this is a huge topic that we could spend days and days on, but there's only three recommendations. The extending agriculture zoning. So that's actually focused on promoting and expanding like home scale produce and abilities to set that through different mechanisms. The same is focusing on increasing commercial and residential composting. And then the last is the downtown pay for parking. So that's a parking requirement in the downtown area to help encourage people to use alternative modes of travel to get downtown. And that one comes with the caveat right now that we started this process before COVID and everybody recognizes that this is not something we would want to implement while we are still in the midst of a pandemic. So that one would definitely be put on hold until some future date when we don't want to further impact downtown businesses. Yeah, Paulie, did you have a question? Well, okay, I tried to keep my mouth shut because this is your board, but all three of these, I just think are bizarre ideas. What this city has done perpetually in the six and a half years, I've been on the city council is they have annexed Boulder County agricultural land and they have turned it into multifamily housing. We have lost so much agricultural land, it's pathetic. And we have turned things like Blue Ribbon Farm is completely walled in by developments around it. They're in the offing. We have okayed all of that. It was all agricultural land. We have turned Olin Farms, it is completely walled around by huge housing communities. We have totally destroyed agricultural in this town. We have okayed a massive 400 unit, 400 homes on Rogers Road, which pisses off all the people on Rogers Road who bought their homes so that they exactly, so that they could have chickens and llamas and eggs and exactly this. This is exactly the opposite of what our city has been doing. And this will do nothing to change that because the idea that if you read this L1, LW1, it talks about everybody growing their own food, changing zoning so people can grow their own food. They can already grow their own food. They can have five chickens. They can do a whole lot of things. I grow a lot of stuff, but am I, I only have a third of an acre, you know? It's not like I'm going to ever be able to grow all my own food, nor do I really want to, you know? It's an idea of agriculture or farming that is very romantic. And all my family was farmers. I mean, this is not going to happen, you know? People aren't going to be growing their own, all their own food and canning it and selling it. For one thing, that's a health issue. You have to have a certified kitchen because otherwise you get all kinds of swell diseases that we spent a hundred years trying to get rid of. So I do not think this is very wise. There also is a part of this that talks about kids participating in learning how to grow through the schools. They already do that. So this is not adding anything to that. The second one on commercial composting. That would be nice. But as the person who brought composting to this city through sustainable resolution, Longmont and talking to David Friedland for ages and ages and ages, I can tell you people were, oh, they were rioted up. We're going to have rats. We're going to, this is terrible, they're making us. I mean, you have no idea how big an issue composting was, it was almost as bad as prairie dogs. So trying to force them to compost, while I would like to do that because that would make it a whole lot more efficient. And we also, we can't, I don't think that's feasible. I think people will, I just don't think it's feasible. And commercial, we are not allowed in Colorado law to force a municipality, municipality can't force a commercial business to use its city utilities. But we could make them do something about having some form of both recycling and composting. I think that's a good idea because commercial has huge amounts of waste. That's where we're wasting everything. And also apartment buildings, which we also don't pick up from. And Charlie Kaminides has been trying to get that for years, but there are costs associated. So downtown pay for parking. I told you I was going to talk a little bit. The reason people come to Longmont from other places is they can park for free. If we make them pay, they're not going to come here. Now we've already closed off half of the highway, making it even more difficult for them. So anyway, that's just my feeling about this, those three issues. There are so many things that we should and couldn't be doing with land use and waste management. And I think plastics would be included in this. And there's no mention of any of those things. So I think this section is not very well done. Okay, so voting thumbs for the first one, agricultural zoning. I really want to give it this, but I'm going to give it a this because I agree with Polly that it needs work. I really want it to work. Free thumbs down. So Mary, you just, you want it to work? Yeah, I really think that it's really positive and useful to encourage folks to grow their own food, but this really needs to be tied into the gray water and education. I mean, yes, they're already taught how to do this in school. I would like to know your specific objections. Are you afraid that now people are going to be able to keep pigs in their development? This isn't talking about that. And I want to be careful with two more sections we need to get through. And I don't want to shut down conversation, but I also- I love this one. I want it to be stronger. And I agree with Polly that the loss of agricultural land and the watching farms being hemmed in like all in farms has been excruciating. And I wish that this section included something for preserving farms as farms. And I know that that's not an easy win. That's not an easy thing to do in a plan like this. It's a free market. We have a free marketplace. Okay, so Kody, Kay or James? Jim, do you want to tell me why your thumb's down? Yeah. I have a reasonably large lot with a lot of sun and lung. And I think if I converted the entire thing to a garden I doubt I'd break 15% of my yearly caloric intake. I just, I mean, I enjoy gardening. I think there are things that you can grow that you can way better than anything you can buy. But in terms of actually addressing hunger or making a significant dent in the amount of food or the number of calories that you have to go purchase from commercial farms. I just don't think that it is an efficient way to go about addressing any of those challenges. I would rather encourage local farms. And like both Mary and Polly have said, I think that that would actually address a problems. But I think this is, this is really, this almost never gets bigger than a hobby, realistically. Kay or Kody? That's the same thought I'm having is when I look at the homes and the lot sizes around here, really the properties that are big enough to be zoned for agriculture and the ones with enough space to have things like farm animals and such, you know, and I guess, you know, obviously I could, I think of a current code. I can still have like chickens or something like that in my backyard without being agricultural. But anything that is large enough to be agricultural is already and still is agricultural. Like the homes on Nelson Road or gone Hygiene Road or, you know, Rogers Road, what is there? Yes, the city is building developments and reversing that, you know, but, you know, yeah, to change like my backyard into residential agriculture, that's, it's not gonna, I'm not gonna garden it. I'm just gonna use a ton of water. Can I ask one Lisa's specific question? Is this addressing the food not lawns kind of issue where HOAs aren't allowing people to put gardens in the front yard? Was that in part inspiring this? Part of this is looking at how we would work with HOAs. We don't, because HOAs are an independent entity, we can't regulate what they do. I really think this is worth reexamining to expand what people can do and to allow people to put vegetables in the front yard if they want. But we have got to work on preserving and expanding local farmland at the same time. It doesn't work as a standalone. Okay. Cody, did you have anything to add or can we move to the next one? I think polyarticulated nicely. It just seems like a band-aid on a deeply structural problem. Okay. So composting, thumbs. It seems okay. The devil's in the details on this one. We already came up with that time. Okay, tell me what you thought. I want to say that before composting, that like, you know, I'm going, it's this level of education that needs to go garbage, to recycling, to composting. Just because recycling's been round longer to people, curbside recycling's been there forever. And I'm like, I want to see commercial recycling before I see commercial composting. That's my thought. That's the only thing I got against it. I think 75% is very, it's a little high also, but I'd say go for it, but get recycling in there. Okay. And pay for parking. Thumbs down, thumbs down, thumbs down, thumbs down. Okay, great. Can I just make one comment about this that I think that having municipal parking places for downtown employees so they can park all day would solve a huge amount of the parking problems that we have. We wouldn't have people taking up all of the spaces in front of their business and moving their car every two hours. That would go a long ways to supporting local businesses and dealing with this issue. Okay. So moving on to renewable energy. So we have the first is just acceleration of the city's smart meter installations. The second one is home energy management system. So that's promoting home energy management systems. Which is essentially setting up systems in your home to manage smart technology and things like that. Energy savings program, which is focused more on the, sorry, let me turn it up there. Educating and incentivizing the use of home energy management systems and developing an opt-in program where LPC can actually help manage your use during peak times. And then the energy, oh, sorry, savings program. Sorry, I lost my place here. The energy savings program is a step beyond the home energy management program and allowing for individual customers to save money on their electricity bill by matching their supply and demand where they can actually again allow LPC to sort of manage their energy during peak hours. Carbon intensity signaling is essentially just that is providing real-time information on the carbon intensity. You can just throw it out. I'm gonna take a shower. Can you all meet yourselves? Sorry. So that's information coming from Platte River to LPC and then LPC is sharing that information with customers so people can make choices during, if they wanna use energy during times where there's a lot of renewable energy on the grid or if they wanna cut back on energy use if it's a fossil fuel heavy period of time. And then the last one is developing a distributed energy resource plan. So looking at things like community solar, rooftop solar, group five programs for electric vehicles and charging stations would help shift demand during peak times of day and looking at creating a pilot program to help us look at different opportunities for distributed energy resources. Sorry, I'm just kind of all over the place. Are there any clarifying questions that people have on that? It's a pretty straightforward but also there's a lot of details on them. I would like to know on number one if there's been any movement with creating a hardwired smart meter option in the city. It's something that Harold mentioned to me almost a year ago now. Not that I've heard, but I can't say that I'm super connected to that so that I would be able to answer that question. Okay, so let's vote. So the first one, smart meters. I'm gonna give you a thumbs down. That's down. Okay, Mary, you want the hardwired option? Is that the- Yeah, we need to have the hardwired option and I would like to recommend again that we bring in Tim Shekali who invented the smart meter and he can talk to us about the big a regulators lawsuit that's going on against the utilities who manipulated kind of the markets and created a big propaganda campaign to force smart meters as what I call the irradiating option that fly through the air energy option which is less efficient and has data security and for some people health issues but it definitely wastes a lot of energy and he lives in Boulder and he would be happy to speak to us and explain to us why the AMA standards additionally are gonna be obsolete within a couple of years. So going ahead with that process I think is fraught for a number of reasons. So number two, home energy management systems promoting and incentivizing that. It sounds like a kind of an idea. I'd like to have the- I'd like to hear concerns on that. Okay, Jim Fox? I think with both number two and three here my concern is that they are ways to try to save energy that require a lot of very expensive equipment to save energy. And I think that our money would probably be better spent helping people better insulate their house and buy better windows. My guess is that that would probably save more energy in the long run. So I think for me I have a hard time with these tech centered ways to try to save energy. When I think that there are a lot of better ways that we can use our existing resources. Jim. I want to- Sorry. My thought is just again looking at the equipment to install it and all the syncing when it's like really people just need to be turning off their lights. And that's, you know, so I look and say yeah, it's a lot of expensive equipment. Where the smart meters are, you know, to be an efficient way to get the data that helps with the rates and all that stuff. Um, you know, I mean, I think everybody knows the thermostat does a great job. But the whole home energy management system seems a bit, I don't know. I guess I look at it as an expensive improvement. Cody? Oh, I agree with Jim. I think he said it perfectly. Great. Mary? Um, yeah, I'm agreeing with Jim on this one. It's like why complicate it? Put some insulation around your windows kids. Okay, the third one, energy savings program. Sounds like maybe you all have some similar comments on that one. Okay, just give me your thumbs real quick so we can count them up. I mean, the devils and the details on this, if we can make it simple and actually taking less energy than, you know, that it saves. Okay, Kate, what? I, you know, I'm gonna go sideways on this one because I wanna go up on the third one on the fourth one there maybe. But I guess I think on both of these, I don't, I mean, I look and say, hey, if I had a notification on my phone that just said, hey, high demand right now, then I would make an effort to make sure my lights were off. Okay. But it's gotta be something that simple. You know what I mean? Okay. For both of these. Okay. And then four carbon intensity thumbs. That was days. I'm gonna give it up because that to me seems simpler. Okay. I think this also has a great potential like education get kids involved component to it. I apologize. I don't understand this one. So it's just, it's real time information essentially that can say from coming from Platt River and this will change as our grid gets greener. But can say, hey, in this period of time, like it's peak solar production, our renewables really high. So if you wanna run all of your appliances, this is a great time to do it versus. Oh, okay. Yeah. Yeah. I look and say, you could put this in an app on a phone with just a dial on it that's red green. And people could check it periodically in the day and learn about, like it's a simple, I could see it as a very simple opportunity to learn just when is good, when is, when to watch it. Okay. And then five distributed energy resources. I think this sounds like information is good. Okay. Perfect. All right. Moving on. All right. No discussion. Move on. All right. Do you wanna do a time check? Cause we have about 15 minutes. We got about 15 minutes. There's been really a lot of great conversation, but I don't know if we're gonna get through everything. I don't know how we might. Yeah. So we do, we have transportation. And then I want Francie to just take a couple of minutes talking about the Just Transition Plan equity recommendations and then we have a couple of wrap up pieces. So we're. Okay. Perfect. Thanks. So transportation. So the first one is increasing the effectiveness of public transit through a checkpoint or flexible bus service, which is an interesting concept where you take essentially a fixed route bus service and kind of combine it with the idea of a call and ride service. So if you have a fixed street that's going down main street, but you have somebody that lives a block away that would otherwise need to call like the call and ride system that they could actually put a call into that. And that, that bus could take a quick detour and pick up somebody that has mobility or access issues that would need that. That sounds great. I do want to go through all of them. I'll go first. Yeah. I'll go through all of them and then we'll vote. Electric vehicle charging infrastructure. So that's installing a bunch of new level two charters over the next 10 years in the downtown area. Connected bikeways. That's a pretty extensive program over the next 10 to 20 years to really build out a comprehensive bike network so that people can more safely get through all different parts of town bike and then alternative work schedules which this actually came about before COVID but is obviously quite relevant of working with employers and employees to encourage these alternative work schedules or teleworking or other things like that that would help reduce congestion, traffic in particular during times of congestion and try to address in particular our own issues. So T1, how did I feel about the flexible bus service? That seems, that seems very cumane. Okay. T2, you'd be charging. Okay, three thumbs up and a thumbs down from Kay. Well, I shouldn't get a full thumbs down but I'm going to just because I guess I looked and say, do we have that many electrical cars yet? And I look and say, I think when I see bikeways as a way, bikeways in public transportation, I see those as better options than assuming everybody's going to afford an electrical car within the next 10 years. And so I hate to lose parking lot. I know downtown is going to be losing parking spots and that is part of where they've also said, let's start charging. That's not only a climate issue but I know there's gonna be like a big parking structure put in but I think there's also with that they're losing some spots too. But I look and say, I hate to lose more spots just electrical charging when I don't, when I think those are currently empty most of the time. Lisa, can I ask how much of this is really kind of a, I hate to use the term virtuous signaling but sort of a messaging to put them in a visible place on Main Street and how much is it actually based on research showing that this is something that's needed? So I didn't develop these recommendations, these are from the task force, I'm just bringing them to you so I can't speak to that directly. I think it's a bit of both. I would like to see a research-based justification for this and I'd like to ask the local businesses. Okay. I'd like to, could I say something? I'll leave it on. Okay, I have a real problem with this because in terms of equity, we don't provide gas, the government does not provide gas stations or vehicles and the only people right now who can afford electric vehicles are the upper middle class and the wealthy and why are we subsidizing them? If the people who make cars often are also in business with gas stations and if they really wanna sell electric cars they should be providing the charging stations because those charging stations are extremely expensive and they don't last very long and then you have to get a new one. And I just don't think that we should be in the business of having people who make $20,000 a year having to subsidize people who make 90 or 200 or to me it's you're creating also infrastructure that is very expensive and does not last very long. And I think that's a bad investment. I would love to see more electric vehicles that the rest of us could afford and I would love to see the people who make those electric vehicles providing and charging stations. So that's just mine. Okay, can we move on to the- Right, I have a quick question. I saw board members nodding but I'm only including board voting member comments. Do, are there board members who would like me to include Polly's comments in the voting comment? I'm saying, I resonate with Polly's comment. Thank you. You can adopt that in the same way that I'm trying to say just, I don't see there's enough cars for it or enough space for it. Okay. Can we re-vote? Re-vote? Yeah. If you guys want to re-vote- I'm a no. I'm still a no. Okay. Okay. So let's re-vote. That's a lot you're charging. Okay, gotcha. Okay, so T3 connected bikeways. All right. Can I just have one comment? Thumbs up, thumbs up, thumbs up. All right. Can I just add one comment to the connected bikeways? I know what worked. I'd like it to also, I'd like it to be multi-use. I like bikeways, bikes are great. I think most of the use will be bikes but they're also important for people in wheelchairs. And so I just, I'd like it to be an expansive, safe, non-near-car transportation place. Okay, thank you. Take words, rollerbladers. Okay. And then alternative work schedules. We're already doing this. Alternative work schedules. I was gonna say, I'll throw in a comment of support that we all saw more bees this spring. We all saw the blue jays everywhere. We saw owls in our neighborhoods. We had no small cloud in Denver for a while. So, and I will say the biggest thing is people getting off the road. So I'll do two thumbs to count two. I'll explain to the board members not here. Okay, great. So we're gonna move on. Francie's gonna give us a quick rundown of the Just Transition Plan equity recommendations and then we'll wrap up. Thank you, Lisa. Great. I am going to go through this pretty quickly. I know we've been bringing the Just Transition Plan process to the board throughout the process when we first started back in 2018. Just to remind the board that we did with the 2019 resolution decided to use this group to help achieve that desire for overall equitable climate action. I do wanna clarify before we get into the recommendations, climate action task force were more specific recommendations of how to do it. Why these are more how a process recommendations that can be applied to any climate action task force recommendation. We are just asking for high level comments at this time. We do not have a clear direction on city council about where to go with these recommendations. So I'll just walk through them quickly then ask for high level comments. So there are two section for the recommendations. This one's pretty short. This is more about how to apply in an assessment. So it essentially talks about the application of doing the Just Transition Plan process, providing an educational foundation, an equity and climate action, applying an equity lens and focusing on frontline communities that are most impacted by climate change. So this is more of a kind of a quick approach of how you're gonna do it and then the more in depth recommendations on the next slide. So these are really kind of the overarching recommendations that can be almost applied like a lens. So there are a number of different recommendations in marketing and outreach like engaging cultural brokers, creating culturally relevant targeted outreach, using data and research to further understand the community, working to identify barriers and then from that increased program access, equitable access to jobs, which was kind of agreeing with the climate action task force recommendation that there needs to be workforce development and transition workers to new jobs like in the oil gas industry. Understand that there's a connection to health and safety and that should be addressed in climate action. Specifically understand and address the financial burdens of low income households and then build self-reliance and access to resources on a community and neighborhood level. And lastly, they had recommendations on how you can identify alternative funding mechanism for climate action. So all eight of these can essentially be taken and they're kind of framed as questions you should consider when implementing each of the climate action recommendations. So are there any high level comments that the group would like to provide the city council? I just have one, Francie. I think all those are great. I have no problem with any of them. I'm just curious who's gonna be asking the questions necessarily and will it involve members of the community? I just wanna make sure that the people who can actually answer those questions properly are kind of involved with making sure that they are asked properly, if that makes sense. Yeah, and Jim, so one of the things that we've been talking about, and again, as Francie mentioned, we haven't gotten any formal direction from city council on this yet. We did start to have that conversation when we went to present to them on the seven was continuing to work with the Just Transition Plan Committee who are those folks from those online communities to help us apply that equity lens to climate action so that we are getting at that. We are trying to make sure that we have those voices presented. That's fantastic. I'll give a double thumbs up to that continuing. Equity is always good. All right, so Heather, if you wanna move to the next slide then, this is our last one and we'll wrap up. I wanna circle back to that governance recommendation around incorporating oversight of the climate action, implementation of climate action recommendations in the Sustainability Advisory Board, and then forming the ad hoc committees and incorporating climate action recommendations into existing plans like the Council Work Plan. And folks show me thumbs on how they feel about that. We gotta keep talking to people. Okay, great. And then also, I just wanted to see if you all had additional thoughts on the community engagement component. So as I mentioned, we did try to do some of that, but as we move forward into implementation, we have talked about how we know that not all voices were represented in this process. And I just wanna see if you all have additional thoughts on should we continue with more comprehensive community engagement or other thoughts on that piece in particular? And I, despite earlier comments, I can be quite cynical. And I don't have a ton of faith in people my age and older, but I do think that community engagement and community outreach, I think that for me, we would get a lot more bang for our buck if it focused on high school and junior high-aged long monitors, than it did of trying to reach like the drunk guy at the conference or the thing who came up and wanted to talk to me about sustainable living. So I don't like community engagement, but I think that we should really focus on receptive groups. Hey, Mary or Cody, do you want anything in terms of community engagement? This is always a tough one. I know this sounds really dorky, but I've really formed a lot of my sense of who Longmont is and why Longmont is by looking at those circulars that come in your water bell, you know? And I think that maybe some of that messaging could be tightened up and have better headlines and maybe rather than pages and pages of information, there could just be like a shorter postcard that says save this, remember to, I mean, people won't save it, but they might look at it before they throw it away. I don't know. This is always the tough one. I would just add maybe reaching out to faith groups. I'm also on the board of a local church and there's a lot of folks there that could probably be reached that maybe aren't, I've learned are very technologically challenged with our Zoom services, so. Honestly, this town loves to go out to eat. Maybe we should put that, you know, okay, restaurants give them an incentive to put something on a menu or something. I don't know. Okay. And then are there any final thoughts that anyone wants to share and anything that we've talked about or the report in general? I mean, this is probably somewhat conceited on my behalf, but are you going to do any revisions based on our comments and if you do, can we see them? Well, all of the comments from the boards will go back to city council to help them further discuss how they want to move forward with the recommendations. So we'll work in progress. I just want to say that I think that the Just Transition Plan is the reason that Long Month Sustainability Plan is actually has a good chance of working. And I think that it's the thing that's been missing from conservation and environmentalism for decades. So for me, just everybody who works on it, big round of applause, and the people who came up with a big round of applause. And I think it's the key that could actually make things work. Thanks for saying that. I think they also did a good job putting together a report like this in six months. Yeah, no kidding. Just let you know, good brainstorming on the part of the group that put it together again, the climate task action force. Or, you know, I do see it as these are the ideas they brainstorm and not every single one is perfect. So, you know, but still it's, I found with it put together to be comprehensive. And thanks for getting it going and having them do it. And I think they got some good ideas in here. Okay, thank you guys for your time. I know it was a lot and I'm sorry that we had to like, really rush through pretty quick, but I appreciate your time and your articulate thoughts. So we'll keep going. I like your outfit, Lisa. I like the, that's much more efficient for getting us through conversations. Yeah, it helps a lot. It helps a lot. So we'll keep you posted as we bring things back to council about their continued conversation is, and I think there's maybe, is there anything else on the agenda, Kay? I have other business. Did anybody have any other business? Just no, cause it's late. Any items from staff? Longmont sustainability coalition meeting. Yeah, it's just an announcement that the next sustainability coalition meeting is on August, whatever, Dave, that's listed on that sheet. August 12th, 2020 guys, August 12th, okay? Yeah. And we'll probably be discussing these recommendations as well, but I wanted to let you guys know, so. Okay. And then did we have any other items from the board? I should look at this camera, but you're on the big screen now. No other items from board. If there's no items from council, Polly, any more items? Actually, there was the discussion about whether this board was going to be kind of the keeper of this report and the implementer, is that true, Lisa? Not the implementer, but that just would have some general accountability and oversight are getting implemented, yeah. Well, earlier, this board asked to be commissioners and this would be a good way to get to be commissioners. Right. I'm just saying, you know, take the opportunity. Well, if we were made commissioners, then I would ask for a revision cycle on the plan. Yeah, I think that would be a good idea. I think. Anyway, have a lovely weekend, everyone. All right, and then I guess if that's it. Never do your own concrete work. I've done it, Polly, it's miserable. Oh my God, I had my burn forever on my hands. I will tell you, this is the last time I'll see you guys for a while, but you all are in capable hands. I'm super, all right, so I would. Good, good. See you all in the hall. Are we ready to adjourn? Take care, Lisa. All in favor, say aye. I move to adjourn and say good luck, Lisa. Good luck, Lisa. Motion to the different one. All right. Thank you to Ken, everybody. All right, I'll put the hammer.