 to the June 28 meeting of the Mobular Planning Commission. First thing you have to do is approve the agenda. If people could take a look. We don't have the minutes, but that's fine. It's on the agenda, we'll just have to skip that. Do we have a motion to approve the agenda? I move to approve the agenda. Okay. I'll second. Okay. Motion by Ariane. Second by Barb. Those in favor of approving the agenda, say aye. Aye. Aye. Okay. Agenda approved. Next thing we have is comments from the chair. Nothing planning commission related has occurred that I'm aware of. I should probably let everyone know that I will not be present for our first meeting in August. So if you're able to cover Erin, let me know and if not, we'll figure out something else. So that's going to be a few away. Hey, Stephanie. Oh, sorry, my microphone wasn't working. I'm back to ignore me. Okay. I'm also out that week, Kirby. I don't know if others will be, but just if we're going to take, make sure we have a group, a big enough group and we'll be on that week. Okay. Well, I mean, if we don't, if we don't have a quorum, there's always stuff people can do and we can just hold off on voting for anything. Yeah, I'm also going to be gone that week too. We can sort that out in a couple of meetings from now, what we plan to do that week. We'll probably also sort out around then if we want to do anything different for in-person meetings. But I don't have any more comments, which brings us to, oh, go ahead, Mike. If I could just jump in real quick, just to go through and say, you know, for people who are watching this either on Orca or online, as you'll see, we also now have a public option, which you'll see, which we had agreed to, we're going to continue to meet by Zoom because it's the most convenient for everybody to be able to meet this way. But as per state law, there is now a public option. So city hall, the doors, the back doors will be open in order for people to access the city council chambers to participate in this meeting if somebody can't for some reason participate online or wants to come in. There is a computer terminal set up with a video so you can watch and participate from the city council chambers. So that's the way this will work going forward. It's pretty easy, straightforward system. So I just want to let people know that's now an option. Yeah, thanks, Mike. So people can stop by city council chambers or they can go online. There's two ways to access the planning commission if you want to participate. Speaking of the next item on the agenda is to hear from the public. And we do have a visitor coming in online here. So I'd like to ask the person whose name is Peter Kelman if they would like to participate, if they'd like to talk about something that's not on the agenda, announce the time. No, I'm just observing. Thank you. Okay, great. Well, welcome. Okay. So that's the general business. The next week are supposed to consider the minutes. Those aren't ready. So we'll be considering the June 14 minutes at a later meeting, which brings us to wrapping up the energy chapter on our agenda. So, Mike, can you tell us where we left off there? When we left last time, I think my notes had that we had gotten through on the chapter part, we had gotten all the way through until the implementation, the discussion of aspirations, goals and strategies. So I don't know if we individually wanna pull it up, I better pull it up so Peter would also have an access to it. Just take me a second to share screen. So can everyone see that now? Yeah, you can see it. All right, see if I can. So we got down through to here where we were talking about the aspirations and goals. So this was the, so I went through and moved the other ones and replaced it with the existing, this is what we had approved as our aspiration. Montpelier will be a net zero city by 2034 municipal operations in 2050, community wide. So this was, nice to see a couple of comments have been added where we had gotten to at the last meeting. So we still had to go through these two sections. Okay, let's do it. I'll start reading through and tackling, we can tackle the comments as they come and people can speak up. I'll just, I'll read from your version, Mike and so pulling out myself. So as Mike just said, he put in the, we've reduced this to one overall aspiration and by combining things, basically we haven't taken anything out as far as what the aspirations were like coming from the energy committee, but so the double aspiration here is Montpelier will be a net zero city by 2030 for municipal operations and 2050 community wide. The aspiration in this plan is bold and envisioned as transformation of current ways of living and working. This requires a detailed net zero implementation plan. How can we explain the difference between this and the strategies we are including here? Was that your comment, Mike? No, I believe that was Barb. Okay, so this entire comment is Barb's. What are you thinking, Barb? Well, now I'm trying to figure out when I last, is this what actually shows up under our tab for, I'm not finding this particular version, but anyway, I think that the implementation plan is what we were going to contract for from a consultant. And so that's why it's different than the implementation strategies included here. So I don't think that question was necessarily mine, but there's no sort of indication that we're going to be contracting this out for the implementation plan. And what is the status of that, Mike? As far as I know, they put out an RFP and they've signed a contract with somebody who is doing the work to come up with the 2030 portion. So how are we going to, what are the details of how we get to net zero? So what we've had so far has been a lot of general points. For example, we have to convert to a biodiesel or something like that. So there's some, a lot of general things, but there hasn't been the specific discussion which is what they're looking at in this net zero implementation plan. So- And that's specifically for- Yeah, how much is it going to cost to buy a biodiesel snow plow? How much is it going to cost by a biodiesel or electric fire engine? And then being able to plug those numbers into our equipment plan, capital equipment plan. So we can start budgeting to make these purchases because right now what we have is a general idea that we need to do this, but we haven't really put any numbers to what that's going to actually cost to do. So specifically we're talking about this detailed net zero implementation plan being from municipal only. This first one is yes. Right, okay, yes, okay. I think somehow if we can indicate that because the aspiration here says also includes in a community wide. So whereas this net zero implementation plan is specifically talking about municipal operations. So I think the first question is do we need to mention this, what the city's doing right now to find out about costs or is that kind of implied in the plan? Like do we need to call that out specifically? Like what do you think, Mike? Well, this section of what we're talking about. So this is part of the text or part of the chapter that would be in this case part of the webpage of the plan. And so it's really meant to get people an introduction to what our aspiration and goals are. So probably getting into the specifics of that would probably be in the section that will come just after this when we talk about the outline of our implementation approaches because that gets a little bit more specific. But again, if somebody is looking for the details they would probably be looking at our implementation strategy. This is really meant to help people, again, our chapter is meant to be 1,000 to 1,500 words or people can get a bite-sized understanding of what our energy plan is. What is it that we want to do? And what is it, what are the challenges and what's our general strategy for getting there? Okay, is that okay with you, Barb? If we mentioned this but we mentioned it down in the details below. Well, I suppose so, but I think we should be specific about this requires a detailed net zero municipal implementation plan because this is specifically only for municipal operations, okay? Yeah, I think we should not have this here like the sentence that's in red for me here. Like just don't have that up in the intro. We'll just have it down in the details. Okay, as long as it's clear that it's only for municipal. Yeah, I got you there and I agree. If it's in the section that's devoted to the municipal part then that would be good. So, okay, so I'll keep going. This implementation plan is being referenced here. Is that referencing what we just deleted, Mike? Or, because we do have a little bit of problem with terminology, maybe. I think in this case, this is referring to the implementations strategy with the implementation plan as part of this document. So would it be better to say something like the city plans implementation strategy talks about the goals that are needed or? Yeah, I mean, we can reward the city plans implementation strategies. Instead of talk about, we say address and you can delete we that's after strategies there. Oh, then I had to change that to the? Yeah. That's the goals that are needed to achieve those aspirations. Instead of saying those aspirations, we should say this aspiration because it's singular now. Okay, awesome reading. Oh, do you have a question, Mark? I'm just trying to, since my screen has worked on some other part of this, can you just scroll down? I'm trying to see if these goals are specific to municipal or? They're all the goals. It's all the goals we have in strategy. So these are not specific to what was just addressed above. Okay. No, but I think we tried to make sure that the goals were specific enough where you can tell what they're referring to. Yeah, there's, we have eight goals. We have one aspiration. This is all we're talking about. I don't know it. Yeah. I'm confused. These goals are what we're talking about. Right, just one aspirant. And so we only have one aspiration now. Correct. Yeah. And that aspiration is. I think some of the confusion comes from the fact that our aspiration does have two parts. It's a city government goal by 2030 and then a city-wide outside of the government goal by 2050. And so the first four goals here refer to the municipal portions and five through eight refer to the city-wide portion. Okay. Let's scroll up and keep going. So the city plans implementation strategies will address the goals that are needed to achieve this aspiration in the context of whether they will be maintaining, evolving or transforming the current conditions. I don't know how much time I wanna spin on wordsmithing, but I think we could do better than the end of that sentence. But I'll get, I'm just gonna keep going. Bold aspirations require big new programs and projects to bring up the degree of change necessary for us to feel good about our chances of achieving them. Okay, so that's just the intro. And then it goes down to the goals and I don't recall everyone who missed last meeting, but this is what we landed on last meeting for the goals. So there was some rearranging and restructuring. We mostly just consolidate, there were instances where we consolidated a few goals into one goal that captured everything that was there before. The idea was to streamline it to make it more readable, easily more easier or more easier. Easier for people to understand. So this is what we have now. I don't think we took anything out or recall taking anything out. Yeah, so these also usually aren't in the written text. So these will be just here for reference for our conversation. Is there a definition prior to this about what net zero means in this context since it's a moving target? Has a lot of... Yeah, we did talk about that and we wanted to make sure that that was defined and clear. Is it further up in the chapter where we do that? I don't remember seeing it. I'd have to go back and... Let's do that. Let's make sure that the chapter at the beginning defines net zero. I'll find it in the other people and join in and help. Yeah, okay, so further up it says, in February of 2014, MEAC recommended the city adopted a citywide goal of net zero molecular. In short, this means that the city is committed to becoming the first day capital to produce or offset all of its energy needs, electric, thermal and transportation from renewable energy sources. And it has set the target date to meet this goal at 2030. This was further expanded and clarified in October 2018 with the adopted city council goal that Montpelier will become the first 100% renewable energy capital city and eliminate all fossil fuel use with the following deadlines. And then it has the 2030 and the 2050 deadlines. 2030 deadline, 100% of energy use for municipal government operations will be renewable or offset. By 2050, fossil fuel use will be eliminated entirely at 100% of energy needs. Municipal, residential and commercial will be met renewably. So it's the third paragraph of the chapter. Where are you, Kirby? I'm on the menu trying to find the right. So energy plant. It's the document we're looking at right now. It's the written chapter part. It's the third paragraph. It's what I just read. The one with BC comments, huh? Yes. Okay. So, yeah, it's the one with the bullet points afterwards. So I just read that paragraph and the bullet points. That's where we define it. Interesting that our 2050 goal does not say renewably or offset. So by 2050, we're not allowing for any offsets then. Okay. Yeah. I mean, my understanding based on what's written here is that that's what city council adopted, right, Mike? Yes. So, I mean... Okay, but why does 2030 say that they could be renewable or offset whereas 2050, everything has to be, you mean, just pardon me? It's a, I mean, I take it as a stepping stone that we can do biodiesel or whatever, or no, that's not an offset, but we can use offsets up until 2050. Okay. Okay, let's keep going. Let's get through it. Oh. So yep, so those are their goals. Mike, you said you're not gonna leave that table of goals in. We haven't in the other chapters. I mean, it's up to us how we structure these. Okay. No, thanks for putting that in there. That was helpful. Okay. So continuing on broadly speaking, this aspiration has goals to examine how to use less energy, i.e. energy conservation and how to switch the remaining energy that we currently use to renewable options. Careful look at the goals in the implementation plan shows that some of these are easier to implement locally while some may need to wait for future national changes to technology. For example, green-mount power, GMP is the power utility that provides electricity for the whole of Montpelier and GMP is already committed to being 100% carbon free by 2025 and 100% renewable by 2030. Making city government and the public net zero with respect to electricity is therefore simple. Provided GMP meets its commitments. So instead of public, I think we should probably say the rest of the city to avoid confusion. And haven't we capitalized net zero everywhere else? I think only with respect to the plan, net zero as a thing and itself oughtn't to be capitalized. And I mean, while we're worse than this, let's go ahead and make it an active sentence. So instead of saying making city government, let's say it may, yeah, take making out and just say it may be simple to... Say the city government is poised to meet its net zero requirements by 2025 provided the GMP meets its commitments. That's good. So the city government is poised to meet its net zero. I would say the city will meet its net zero goals provided GMP meets its commitments. So then for working out. This is relating to electricity though, right? I mean, I feel like we discussed that. It's not all the goals. After goal, you do that electricity goal, it's good. Yeah, you can just, you can just... Do we want to mention the rest of the city? Let's go to the rest of the city goal, let's go. Electrical electricity? Electrical. Yeah, is that not? So the comment in red is just that a comment. I don't know if we want to address it or not, but we're our electrical demands are going to go up significantly. And we don't know if... So we're assuming that GMP will have that capacity. I mean, I don't think it's something we're... I don't think it's something we're speculating about in the plan. I just question whether or not we should bring up it and bring it up as a question to flag people that we can't just keep drawing on GMP. No, we can't speak for what GMP may or may not do with respect to the city. So we just need to note that... I would just delete it. We just... Well, I think we need to note that our demand is going to go up significantly. It's partly covered because we just said provided GMP meets its commitments. So we already... I think we already noted that lying on GMP to provide everything. I mean, there's no question that GMP will meet whatever electric demand the city has. Ooh, I'm not sure I agree, but hopefully they will. Hopefully they will. They absolutely will. Because once we get into heating with heat pumps, our electrical consumption is going to go a lot higher. And the grid is robust enough to meet that demand. It's not worth speculating about in the plan. I would know Aaron used to work for public service. Okay, certainly wouldn't be true statewide, but if you feel confident that we have it here, that's fine. And I think the point of what this paragraph was supposed to be just looking at is that there are going to be pieces of this that are going to be easier and pieces of this that are going to be harder. And that's what's trying to be discussed in this is that we're going to have pieces of this like meeting our electricity goals that are going to be relatively easy. And then there are going to be pieces which come up in the next sentence. On the other hand, transitioning to fossil fuel for transportation will require market shifts in technology and affordability nationwide for vehicles, especially heavy equipment. So there are things that are easier for us to do locally. And there are some things that are going to be more difficult for us to do because we have to rely on national changes technology. You know, where the city of Montpelier is not going to be creating electric vehicles. Right, or we have to be relying on GMP to provide. The power. So my only question about the next sentence, Mike just read it. On the other hand, transitioning to a non fossil fuel future for transportation will, among other things, require market shifts in technology and affordability nationwide for new vehicles, especially heavy equipment. Do we need to say market shifts or just say shifts? I worry that market could be, could throw people off there. I don't understand why we need this sentence at all. Well, it's, I mean, it plays off of the sentence before, because Mike was saying the overall point is to say, some will be simple and some will be hard. So he gives an example of simple then he gives an example of hard. Yeah. And comparing transportation challenges to electrical goals seems worthwhile. Does everyone, does everyone think that it's not, it's understandable when it says market shifts in technology? You think that regular readers can get that? Yeah. Market didn't come out. Is what you're, is what the sentence, is the sentence trying to just say that adoption of electric vehicles is dependent on market, national market penetration? There's something like that. Something like that. I think this goes back to the first sentence. A careful look at the goals of the implementation plan shows that some of these are easier to implement locally while some will need to wait for future national changes to technology. And then there's a discussion of the green mountain power as something that's easy for us to implement locally because of their, the commitment of our power company. And this was meant to be an example of how we may need to wait for national changes to technology in order to achieve some of our other goals. Yeah. And that seems worthwhile. I just don't understand what market, what you're referring to, is it requiring market shifts in technology and affordability? Are we talking about like the adoption, the widespread adoption of electric vehicles? Are we talking about the rollout of charging stations? Like I just don't understand what we're talking about. I mean, it looks like it's, I don't understand what market shifts in technology is referring to. But we can take the market out through tips and technology. And some of these, I mean, we may have some pieces of this currently, but let's talk about if we wanna have electric fire engines. I think there are currently like three of them in the United States. There's gonna be a shift, we're gonna need a shift in technology and affordability in order for us to talk about, and how are we going to, and what options are available for snow plows and certain equipment, certain things have come along from a technology standpoint. So that makes, can I recommend and say something like, on the other hand, like adapting electrification of unique like city vehicles such as fire engines and snow plows require further changes in technology to be feasible in Montpelier or something like that. What specifically is the problem in your mind with this sentence as it's now written? It doesn't say anything. It does require a lot of knowledge from the reader to put it together. I think Mike just did a very good job of articulating what he really means. It's just like if we want an electrified, if we want an electric fire engine or electric snow plow, we're gonna have to wait for that technology to trickle. There needs to be broader national implementation of those technologies, market penetration of those technologies before we're gonna get that stuff. So we have to just wait for that to occur. And I think we just say, we can just say that, like look if we just wanna have like a certain vehicles that aren't available now, we can let the technology catch up and there'll be a market penetration and we can capitalize on that later. Looks like Peter has his hand up. If I could just jump in here for a minute. This is actually a very important point and it's not just about technology, it's also about public policy. It's also about changes in the economy. I'll just give you an example. In Northern Europe, there are hydronic heating systems for homes. Technology exists, but it doesn't exist very much in the United States outside of large facilities. If we really, one of the largest areas, when we're not talking about city government, but residential, is converting our oil-based heating systems. We can't do that until there's an infrastructure. It's more than technology. It's an infrastructure for that technology. Installers, people who will do that work. And I think it is really quite important to make some kind of a statement about this, to let people know, we can't do this by ourselves. It's gonna be part of a national change. Yeah, so thanks Peter for that. And that is what we're trying to get at here. A lot of our discussions are about just making sure that the plan's fluid and people can follow along. We hope that within the plan, with the goals and the strategies and everything that we're getting at everything you're talking about. Okay, are you making those changes, Mike? Yeah, I'm trying to capture what Erin had proposed. So let me know how close to when getting will become... So where are we at, Erin? Hold on, I'm just reading it right now. They've changed become to require, right? Will acquire those items to become more affordable and more widely implemented. More affordable and... Can I take a quick stab at it? Say it. I think I have a solution. Give me a second. Let me go ahead and do a second. Let me know if this works for you guys. So while Erin's doing that, we are taking a bit long on the chapters. I'm gonna say that I will try to pre-edit these for now on each week. I think that might be just the most efficient and then it'd be easier to go through and... Korea, I have a thought about the chapters. So I went through not well in advance, but in advance I did go through this chapter and edit, make edits to it, both last time and this time. And part of what I found challenging was that sometimes I didn't know if something was important or relevant still after we had gone through and changed just given that some of this stuff is kind of well out of my wheelhouse. And I wonder if it's worth our time in these meetings to try to have a discussion about what is it that we wanna focus on in the chapters? What types of things do we need to say? And what types of points like this one that we were talking about about the role of things outside of our control, that's an important point. Is it worth having some group conversation about what we wanna highlight in the chapters and then going through with everybody spending time on their own, going through and editing outside of these meetings? But I just wonder, basically I'm just saying, when I went through and edited, I found it a little challenging because I wasn't sure what things were still relevant or what things were really important to highlight just given that some of this is out of my wheelhouse. Does that make sense? Yeah, so what I'm thinking is, I mean, Mike has already laid down what he thinks is important to include. So we have that for Mike and that's what this is. If I were to go through it, I would just rephrase things for clarity. Like a lot of what we're doing is just rephrasing things for clarity. So I would wanna do that ahead of time so that the group's not spending time on that and is spending more time on what you're talking about which is bigger questions of like, well, have we mentioned this thing or that thing or is it important to mention this thing? So that's what I'm talking about. And I would say, I mean, if you are reviewing a chapter again, like individually, then feel free to just really go at it. It's not a matter of what do I cut or not. Like I probably wouldn't go through it with the mind of cutting anything. I would just go through it with the mind of rephrasing for clarity. I think the thing that we're doing right now is a perfect example. Like we don't need to be trying to come over the sentence right now, could have done that ahead of time. What's up, Barb? After this, I wanna go on. Yeah, I'm just wondering if we need to go through this as you said, line by line. And I mean, are you suggesting Kirby that a smaller group get together to edit? Or I guess I'm not certain what you're suggesting about this because it would be nice to have some other process other than us having to go through it line by line. But for housing preservation or historic preservation, I went through it and I made a bunch of edits ahead of time. We implemented those and then our discussion was a lot quicker. That's all. Yeah, it's just a lot simpler. Yeah, I'm definitely not suggesting adding any of your art or anything. I'm just saying, and I'm just volunteering to do it. I'll try to do that from now on. And then hopefully we will get through this quicker. It's important to go through it line by line though because I mean, this is like the main meat of our work on this. So, and now's the time for people to talk about things that are missing or policy things that we need to talk about. Okay, so where were we? We have Erin's sentence. On the other hand, a broader national adoption of emerging technologies will be required before the city is able to transition to a non-fossil fuel future for certain unique items such as electric fire trucks and snow plows. Works for me. I think it, it conveys the point of the paragraph and it's clear about that. It's good for me. Good for you, Mike. Yes. Okay, so let's keep going. I think there had been a paragraph which I had made a note on that said, I didn't know if we needed it because originally we didn't, you know, we had six aspirations and now we're down to one. So to talk about the different aspirations didn't seem to make a lot of sense. So I think that that's cracking it looks like somebody struck it so. Okay, that's fine with me. So is that mentioned elsewhere than what the city has already accomplished? Yeah, it is. And anywhere where it said, as mentioned previously as already discussed, I pretty much deleted all of that because it's not necessary and it's too short. It needs to be too short of a document to have to repeat ourselves that way. Right, yeah, just as long as it still exists where it previously was. Okay, yeah, I'm not seeing anything cut there that I feel is crucial. While we have made excellent progress we still have some, let's put a comment after progress. We still have some significant needs especially in the transition of municipal equipment vehicles to renewables, which, and again, a comment before which, or comma, I mean, before which will be necessary to reach the 2030 aspiration. That's necessary to reach. The, I mean, I guess 2030 aspiration is fine. So that's like a sub part of the aspiration but everything from weed whackers and lawn mowers to snow piles and fire trucks. Additionally, the weatherization and conversion to renewables for the remaining buildings not on district heat will be needed. All of these municipal goals will be the priority for the next eight years as the period of this plan will take us to the 2030 deadline. Additionally, the city cannot wait until 2030 to start transitioning the private buildings off of fossil fuels with thousands of homes and apartments and the long life spans of the systems, these systems, home heating conversions will take many years. I mean, that's a good, I think that's a good point to make Mike good starting work on these goals will also therefore be priority for the next eight years. So I think that goes to partially what Barbara was saying earlier. Okay. And then outline of implement before we move on I guess I should stop and say is there anything that people think we've left out of the description of the aspiration? Barb, you had mentioned some concerns earlier that like mentioning the implementation plan that the city's having done. Or is that better for us? I don't think it fits here. Yeah, may figure down farther. Okay. The Montpelier Energy Advisory Committee has been doing much of the heavy lifting for implementation over the past decade. Hang on, on this section, sorry to interrupt you. I was, so this was an instance where I was really having a hard time understanding why the Montpelier Advisory Committee and the position were necessary to be written in here. That was like kind of the first I heard of it. I think unless I'm forgetting something. So I just put a paragraph and a sentence at the bottom and thought that was my offer for this entire section. And maybe we can do what we want with that. But there was a lot in this section where I was just like, I don't see how this, like I'm looking at the implementation plans. I'm looking at this section. I don't see how they go together. I'm not gonna try to line edit it. I'm just gonna start over with what I think the point was with this section. And we scroll back up to, so you're suggesting taking out, outlining the implementation approaches, basically all of that? My paragraph at the bottom, which is in green on my sheet, I suggested that be replaced, replaced everything else in this section. Because I don't understand why we're talking about MIAC and I don't understand why we're talking about it hiring a position. I put a comment in there to be like, is this still relevant? And... So in our other chapters, we've had sections about what has been done up until now. And... But that's higher up. Is that higher up? Have we already done that? Yeah, yeah, summary of past efforts. We already did that. Okay. I mean, we didn't do that. No, there's a few things missing. Okay, well, we know that that's going to be covered. That's good. So we don't have to worry about that. There, yeah. I mean, this section is kind of folksy, maybe. Can you scroll back down to the beginning of that section? Go up to this part. Thanks, sorry, up, yeah. Yeah, I mean, I guess it's really not necessary to mention the committee, except that they are the only ones who have been pushing for it. And they just create the, I think the Revolving Loan Fund for energy projects is an important element to mention somewhere if it's not here. Yeah, but this section is supposed to just be talking about the strategies, which are going to be listed elsewhere. So it's just a summary of the strategies, right? I mean, anything else ought to go somewhere else in this. But one of the strategies, it was the Revolving Loan Fund in order to get that. But it's not any, it's not anymore, at least unless it's in one of the strategies that's listed. Then collapsed. Yeah. So it's confusing to pull out small parts of something that's been collapsed when the thing that people are going to be looking at doesn't have that called out, if that makes sense. I don't wanna, we have to either call it out in both places or... So we do mention the creation of the Revolving Loan Fund somewhere, right? I guess it's in the first municipal building efficiency initiative. As long as it's still there. But I mean, it's just in a list. Once in place, the actions identified will be implemented through the annual Capital Improvement Plan, the Net Zero Revolving Loan Fund, and the Capital Equipment Plan. So... Sure. There was, I mean, I actually brought this question up and sent it to Mike earlier when we get down to the full-time energy coordinator position. That was something that was supposed to go forward and it's not clear to me what happened to it. What happened to our energy coordinator position? The farm's got split out in public works. When Donna Barlow Casey was hired, there was a reshuffling of position. And so she was basically, we were, basically the intent was to break out the facilities to take it away from the DPW director and create a standalone facilities director. And then when Donna was hired, it was re-absorbed back into the director position. So the result was we didn't end up getting a energy coordinator. Although I thought that that, I thought the money for that position was authorized at one point. Yes. Okay. Let's read Marcella's alternative. See if people are having good with this. Yeah, it's just real high level. Yeah. So what's that? I was just going to say that's somewhat what we want. I think I'd pointed out the last time we were reviewing this that I thought we were ultimately too long. This doesn't have the number of words in it, but we did need to kind of shorten things down. Yeah, by the way, thank you, Marcella. This is wonderful. I don't want that to go unsaid. So implementation with this suite of implementation strategies, Mopular aims to achieve its energy goals for the next eight years. These implementation strategies target energy efficiency and tracking fuel source switching and ensuring proper infrastructure and planning to support fuel source switching. Some of the strategies built upon existing efforts, for example, making the investment to meter the fire station for district heat takes advantage of an existing energy efficient resource and preservability to track and plan for future energy efficiencies. Other strategies implement new programs aimed at supporting their goals. For example, the two new fuel switching initiatives, municipal and residential and commercial, will require Mopular to find alternative fuel sources for various energy needs. The Nezero 2030 implementation plan will play a significant role in identifying where and how to move forward with these implementation strategies. I think we could add to that. I was trying to pull out parts that seemed relevant still from the above few paragraphs, but that was as far as I got. Well, we need to keep in mind that the 2030 implementation plan is strictly municipal. And so, if we're gonna mix in the residential commercial, it, because residential commercial is 2050, so it's a whole different animal. Next. But this document already states that we need to get started on that. Right, but our goals for the residential commercial are for 2050, not for 2030. But anyway, to my mind, it's a little clearer if we can keep municipal separated from the residential commercial, just because the deadlines are so significantly different. The 20 year deadline difference. So, most of this paragraph is talking about municipal. I think that's because most of our strategies are municipal. There's really only two, there's really only two residential and commercial strategies. Unless they reduced vehicle miles traveled as both. Yeah. Well, kind of both. Perhaps it's just the following paragraph that, I have a problem with, because by saying the net zero 2030 implementation plan, it seems to incorporate everything that was mentioned in the paragraph above. And it does not, it should not include residential commercial. So. You wanna just, do you wanna specify that the net zero 2030 implementation plan is for municipal operations? Like, so add in the words for municipal operations, will that help you? Like, so the people aren't misled? Well, maybe it just shouldn't, that is the last sentence and then maybe it just shouldn't be a separate paragraph as it looks like it is now. Honestly, I didn't, I didn't think we were done. I mean, I think I was pulling, there are other things that are in the above paragraphs that aren't reflected here. And I wasn't sure if those things were important or not. So, we can add, to help round this out, or we can just stuff that sentence back into the one paragraph. What do people think? Do we wanna try to pull more from above? Like, do we feel like we're missing anything from the above? Can you take a second to look? I'm really struggling here because I can't see the whole document. Let me see if I can. Do you have access to the drive? Yeah. Let me see if I can get back to it. Pull up, pull up. It's energy plan chapter BC comments. So it's zero. Yeah, I know, I got it. Yeah. But what I have, well, I have the most recent. Here we go. There's a sentence that says, the highest priority at this point is completing the net zero 2030 implementation plan. So we know what improvements are needed. So it sounds like that plan is going to kind of give us a roadmap, which was what I was aiming at with that last sentence. It's mentioned in here multiple times. So it seemed like we needed to bring that down. Yeah, except to the net zero 2030 implementation plan is municipal only. Yeah, I switched that. So the net zero 2030 implementation plan will place significant role in identifying where and how to move forward with our municipal implementation strategies. And then do we have like a parallel sentence for the key tools for how to get residents and businesses to be net zero have not been fully developed will be developed as part of the net zero implementation plan called for in this plan. I don't understand that sentence. So I can't. Which one did you, were you just reading? On the final page of the documents, just the one year cursors over, Mike up one more paragraph right there. The key tools for how to get. So I'm trying to think of what's a parallel sentence we could add to talk about how we're going to get toward meeting those, how we're going to start those strategies that are aimed at residents and commercial residential and commercial properties. But I don't know what will be developed as part of the net zero implementation plan called for in this plan. I'm not sure what that is. Yeah, those are significantly different than the ones we might be calling for municipally. So that's fine. I'm not trying to talk about municipal. I want to talk, I just artfully, I think it would be nice to say, okay, here's the implementation strategies. Some of them, like I'm kind of creating like a very simple pattern here. So like, for example, some of them are going to build upon existing efforts. Others are going to make new efforts. And then the net zero 2030 implementation plan will play a significant role in sort of mapping out how we're going to get to our municipal implementation strategies. And what is the parallel for our commercial and residential strategies? There is a proposed plan, but that hasn't, there hasn't been a discussion about developing that one yet, but we know at some point. So we could add something like that, like a similar plan is in the works or is in early discussion phases for residential and your understanding that, that's going to be more difficult or we have less control over those residential and commercial goals. We're a different set of tools. It's easier theoretically to do the zero 2030 because we're just dealing with our own budget and our own things. We don't need to pass rules and regulation. We just have to adopt policies and spend more money. Conversation. So basically there's, you're saying that there's been, is that this a plan has been proposed to carefully consider all the options from subsidizing energy audits, programs to match grants or loans. That's what you mean by that? Yes. Those are the different policy tools. Okay. So, therefore a net zero 2050 implement a or a similar net zero 2050 implementation plan will be required, will also be required. Is it too much to say it's an initial discussion phases? How about just say in the future? Well, we have the goals are identified in this plan. The, but it's just not the implementation. So is the inference here that we would wait on that implementation plan until the next time this document is written in eight years? Sorry, Barb, can you say that again? Yeah. So basically we're saying that that we're gonna wait to have a plan for residential commercial for the next iteration of this of the city plan in eight years. I don't think it, I don't think it precludes or mandates anything. Yeah. Right. I think it, yeah. I don't think we need to be that specific. I think in the implementation strategy when we look at that next, if those, those plans exist in that strategy, which means it is in our eight year plan. It's just gonna be a lower priority than the stuff that's happening for the 2030. You know, we can't, everything can't be a high priority. Otherwise it's not a strategic plan. So what we've said is the most important things are the 2030 pieces. It's not to say that becoming net zero by 2050 isn't important. But when we're being strategic about what we're trying to accomplish obviously our 2030 goals will take priority over our 2050 goals. Also we have more control over the 2030 than we do over the 2050 because they're municipal. So I think we could and should try to develop the 2050 implementation plan, but you know, maybe we don't start working on that until 2025. And you know, once we, you know, we don't wanna take away effort from our 2030 implementations. Sure. Do we have a strategy for a 2050 implementation plan like we're talking about here? Yes, it's in the, it's described in the implementation strategy. Okay, so we do have that strategy. So that is something that this eight year plan is trying to do in the next eight years. Okay, I have read the sections above. And I think that we've captured everything succinctly for implementation. Does anyone else have any more things I'd like to include? So you're saying that this, these two paragraphs would be the total of the outline of implementation? Yes, they would replace those. Yeah, okay. I mean, of course though, the goals and strategies are the, like the authorities on what we're doing. This is just the description. Well, it's interesting. I had passed over this before, but the whole question of the energy coordinator or someone in that position, are we just going to leave that out? That's the only thing I'm seeing in the, in the chapter, in the paragraphs above that is important element that's maybe not included. What do you think, Mike, about, is that something you need to draw attention to here? I'm just looking back the previous historic, we did talk in one sentence. The city has appointed a Historic Preservation Commission and the science staff and the planning department to assist in the planning and implementation of the city's historic resources plan. That is the extent of it in the other plans. Whether we want to have a complimentary or similar statement here, just so members of the public understand who is doing this. I think that would be helpful so that we, if we identify this position of energy coordinator or whatever we end up calling that person, it identifies for the public that we need somebody and we haven't had them. Pretty much been relying on MEAC for that. Anything that's been done. So if we want to ask for money later, we might want to clue everybody in. I don't think we can, I might be misunderstanding this, but I don't think we can put it into the discussion if it's not in the strategies. Is it in the strategies? We're looking at there. It's a little bit of who. So the strategies don't necessarily always talk about the who, like in the historic resources, we don't mention in the strategies about the HPC or the folks, but those are the folks that are actually doing the work. So that's... I'm just feeling like if it's a new position or if it's like something new that we have to add that feels like a little bit of a different... Yeah, I don't know how specific we can or should be, but mentioning that we have, mentioning MEAC and mentioning that there is staff in this case, apart from the Department of Public Works. But currently there is no staff who are acting as an energy coordinator and that position has been discussed and at one point funded, but it has now disappeared. I think without someone like that, we're not gonna end up getting a coordinated effort. Okay, so how about we put in the sentence similar to the other chapter, we call out MEAC, like we do a stored preservation and we say support from city staff and leave it at that. And if we want to insist upon an energy director or something, then maybe we should have the discussion of creating a strategy for that. Yeah, I agree with that. I don't hate the idea of like talking. I like that we would sort of highlight who does the work. But if above it talks about, like this is something we're gonna have to invest in and if that's the framing, I think it needs to be a strategy. It's already been discussed as something and in fact, funds were allocated for this position. I know, but if it doesn't exist already, I still, it still feels new. Just because it didn't get funded. Well, yeah, I mean. Well, but not that it isn't necessary. It just doesn't feel, I guess, like we're taking this to a greater level of, this whole chapter to a greater level of importance if we aren't willing to fund a position for this work, particularly for the city, obviously, and are going to continue to rely on a volunteer effort from MEAC. It just doesn't sit well with me. I mean, if we say, if we say with support from city staff, which is what, you know, all the chapters are relying on not just volunteer effort. But the support from city staff tends to be more in terms of maybe giving advice or taking minutes. It's not an active position. Yeah, I mean, I get that. Like if we're going to, like I said before, if we're going to try to insist upon a position as something essential to the strategies and the goals, then we should make it a strategy. But it's already been identified. It just hasn't been funded. I think that the fact that it's already been identified, but hasn't been funded is reason to put it in as a strategy if we think it is important or necessary. And even if we include it as a strategy, doesn't mean the city will ever create that position. I mean, that's also, right. It would just add a little more emphasis from us. Like if we consider these are recommendations to the city council, if we don't call it out specifically, then they will assume that we have adequate staffing to figure out. Right, right, exactly. So we need to call out that we don't have adequate staffing and that we need to fund that position. Yeah, we just need to do it in both places. We can't do it in the wording and not in the strategies, in the narrative and on the strategies. Right. So, okay, so we're already talking about this. Is there interests among the planning commission to include a specific strategy for a funded energy director position or energy coordinator position? Do you want, do you want to vote on that Kirby or just? Yeah, yeah, like it would not, no, it would be like a vote thing to like add a strategy. I just feel like, am I forgetting that we talked about this before? I don't remember talking about this at all. I don't remember it being in the chapter, like the recommendations that came from the committee. I would feel weird voting on it. I mean, I'm hearing Barb say that we need it, but I don't know anything else about it. Yeah, I think because the committee had always thought that it was going to happen any minute. I mean, we talked about on the committee, we talked about it numerous times. And in fact, at one point it was determined that there was going to be a not full time, but at least a 0.8 time facility manager energy coordinator. And then that position disappeared. So not because it wasn't needed. Yeah. So next, the next thing on the agenda is to look at strategies, right? Yes. Did we want to vote on these or go to strategies and vote on both later? Well, since it would be included in both, that's why I kind of want to just tackle it now. So let's just do that. Do we have a motion to create a strategy for energy coordinator, a funded position? Or Barb, if you want to make it some other motion, then your own phrasing. No, I think funded, but I'm not going to say that it has to be full time because they weren't willing to do full time before, but that a position should be funded for a facility, we call them different things, but facility manager slash energy coordinator is something that I'm seeing mentioned in one place for municipal buildings. Okay, so a position, a city employee who assists with implementation for municipal buildings. Yes. That's what you're asking for a strategy. Do we have, was that your motion? I suppose so, yes. You want to read it back to me. So we all make sure, what was the beginning of that? So my understanding is Barb is moving, that we have a strategy specifically for a city employee who assists with the implementation of implementing the plan related to municipal buildings. A facility manager slash energy coordinator position. Yeah, I don't feel like we need to name it, like it's like- Okay, it just said that encompasses a lot more than, yeah, anyway, because technically we don't have a facility manager. Okay. Do we have a second? Okay, so we have a second, so we have discussion now. Does anyone want- I don't, we don't even have anything drafted. We don't have a strategy drafted. I would urge everybody not to vote for this. We don't have a what drafted? We don't have anything drafted. There's nothing for us to- Doesn't mean it wasn't in the plan. Was it in the list before it was condensed? That's what I'm hearing. I was just doing some searching. I couldn't find it. Okay. Unless I'm Googling the wrong word. I mean, we're gonna vote on the strategies as a set at some point. So if it's worth adding, we can add it and not vote and discuss it further. I'm not sure. I just don't know enough about it, which is an energy generally, which is why it must have been quiet, but- Can we just put it in as a placeholder? Okay, let's- It's fine. Do you wanna withdraw the motion, Barb, and approach it that way? I'm not sure how I'm approaching it then. We'll figure out the strategies, throw it in there, and then have it out then. Okay, I mean, if you're basically what you're saying is you would- I thought the feeling was that this couldn't just be a strategy that it had to be elevated to a position further up the chain. But if it can be just done as a strategy, that's fine. To me, it seems like a discreet, actionable thing. It's appropriate as a strategy. That's true, yes. Okay, sure, that's fine. It holds a number of our municipal goals. Sure. Okay, so you're gonna withdraw and we'll throw that in as things we consider for the strategies, okay. Yeah, as long as we don't forget about it. Sure, sure, and sorry if I threw people up by suggesting that, I just wanted to get that done while we were on it. Okay, so with that, do we have anything more for the chapter? It would be helpful just to see a clean copy of what we've got left before we have to vote on it if this is something we are voting on. Okay, does everybody have a vote? They wanna look at a clean copy before we go on passing the chapter? If we have a little bit of opportunity later down the road once everything's done to do, I don't like you said you wanted most of the chapter to be pretty much done by this point, but if we do have any opportunity later on, I would be fine voting now and doing the fine tuning later, but I guess. Yeah, there gonna be plenty of opportunities to make additional edits down the line. We just wanted to start to move to get these things put away rather than continue to have them come back up for revote reconsideration. If we're gonna get through 12 chapters before December, we can't have energy on four meetings in a row. Yeah, I think, I mean, I would say I am perfectly fine going with it now. We're gonna have to do reconciliation later on when conflicting things come up in other chapters that we don't even know about yet. So I would just save that for the later. So can you send out a clean draft of what's left? Yeah, I'll clean it up. It'll stay on the iDrive. I'll just rename it. I was gonna go through and approve all those changes, but then I would end up with a different version. So what I'll do is I'll save it under a new name. So these comments will all remain. And then I'll just hit accept all changes and it'll clean it up. And there'll be a probably an energy chapter final. So there'll be energy, the original energy chapter draft. There'll be the energy BC comments and then there'll be the energy plan final. And it's only meant to say final because it's just as far as we've gotten final. Obviously there are plenty of opportunities between now and adoption to make more changes to it. Right, so if we have it with, if we have the final then we could vote on that at the first at the meeting at the start of the meeting next time. I think we should vote it out today. I think we should not have it on me then. I think we do too. I'm being put in a position where I'm gonna have to start speeding things up a lot. Like, we do have a lot of chapters. We just, it's not practical too. So everyone should have a comfort zone of like, yes, we are going to have to sometimes do things rapidly. Right, just do we have a clean copy of this? That's, well, no, we don't now. You're looking at the only copy. So we will have a clean copy, but it will just be in a few days. And we don't need to re, my thought is that we don't need to revisit it now because we have more time to revisit it later. And we will have, we will need to revisit it later because there will be reconciliation that will need to happen short later. So we might as well just save ourselves having to, you know, look at it again in a clean copy when we're gonna have to do it again in a few months anyways. Well, so I agree with that. And I think I've always been a little bit confused about the idea of saying we're approving these when we know we're gonna still make changes to them. I think we're just saying, this is good for now and we'll come back to it when we have the whole set. Yeah, exactly. We're saying this is good for now. Time to move on to the next chapter. Well, I guess- But if we don't vote, then like, then it leaves Mike and like a place of ambiguity. So like that's part of it is just reducing the ambiguity for him to work and then press come back. Yeah, I guess I totally unclear about what we're voting on. So I will not be able to vote on this because what I'm still looking at is a lot of red mark stuff and that has not been stricken out. So that would lead me to understand that that's included. Well, wait, Mike, will you have a clean copy by next meeting? Can I just, I'd like to just make, I'll make the motion to vote this section as complete and move it out of a call it committee and move on to the next section. Next chapter. Can I add to that motion that the questions, things that are questions written in the document, we would consider them addressed as of now and remove them from the quote, clean copy. There are questions written throughout, kind of in red in places, but not actual text written text or comments. It's implied that Mike will clean that stuff up. I think we all have an understanding of what we're voting on that Mike will be cleaning it up before. We're voting on some of the actual inclusion, included sections that will not be included in the final document. For example, I mean, the majority of the section on implementation will be stricken. All the time we vote on things like it is, and part of it is, we approve this with Mike's correcting the things we discussed. So am I correct in saying that the majority of the outline of implementation approaches will be stricken? Yes, you are correct. And the only part that will remain is the implementation section. Right. And, because we do want to move this red line document out of, we're done with it, move on to the next. Okay, so we have a motion from Erin and a second from Marcello. We're discussing that motion right now. Does anyone else have anything else to say before we vote? I guess the only thing I'll say is I don't feel comfortable voting for a document that is as amended as this is. I'd rather have a clean copy so I know what I'm voting on. Okay, so maybe going forward that we'll try to adopt like that approach. Okay, so those in favor of the motion or do we have further discussion? One more chance. Anyone else? Okay, so those in favor of Erin's motion say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed? No. Okay, so that's a six to one, sounded like. And so we've approved the chapter tentatively of course, as always, with the changes and amendments that Mike will make. So yeah, Mike send that around when you have the clean copy, when you get to that. And so now we have to move on to the strategies and we only have 30 minutes. We got through most of them, so believe last time and you guys can correct me where we got to. I see we still have strikeouts in nine and 10. Did we approve that we were getting rid of 10 and striking out nine? I can't remember if we voted on that but I do remember talking about, I think John brought it up. I think we did talk about striking 10 and the parts of nine. I think we didn't get a consensus around that. Yeah, we were to 11 and 12, I think. I think it was, my recollection is we were, there was consensus around 10 and then we were going to discuss 11 and 12 today. Yeah, that was my sense was it was just 11 and 12 that were left, which are the two public 2050 vehicle goals. And I think what we had originally had in the previous plan were about five or six different ideas and so I consolidated them into two recommendations here, one of which is basically taking the elements of the previous of MEACS plan and basically grouping them into the reduced vehicle miles traveled initiative. And this initiative is about reducing vehicle miles traveled by incentivizing active mobility like walking and biking as well as using public transit. This can be helped by continuing financial support. Excuse me, Mike, I'm trying to find where you are. You're looking at template energy goals and strategies for the city plan, correct? Yes. And I am only finding under strategies, I'm only finding a very few. There's 12. Yeah, not including, yep. Well, 12 not including and then strike 10. There's 11 now. Yeah, so I'm clearly not on the right tab. No, you're in the right tab. No, you're on the right tab. We did this consolidating. Okay, well, at first I wasn't finding, all right, so the first one should, it should read municipal building efficiency. Yes. All right, okay. I was only getting one page. Okay, that's great. Thank you. Okay. So this first one was to look at reducing vehicle miles. This initiative is also supported by a dense walkable downtown and public parking lots and structures that reduce cruising and help support a park one shop many policy. Looks like I got a little bit of a run on sentence here and pricing policies in the downtown to make alternative transportation options. This is, this needs to be fully discussed and identified in the future 2015 net zero plan. So that was the first one reduced vehicle miles and the second one is fuel switching. So we're trying to help the public meet the 2050 no fossil fuels goal. So reduce from vehicle miles and fuel switching with the two big buckets that we could put them in. So there's obviously some word smithing that kind of has to go on in there. I did have that kind of run on sentence, but that was the ideas. We'll start with that and see what everybody thinks. Okay, so just I'm just going to hop into making some suggestions to move along. Halfway down the number 11, this initiative is also supported by our dense walkable downtown and public parking lots and structures period. There's been a period in there. This, the initiative will reduce cruising. Oh, I think structures is what is reducing cruising and help support a park once shop many policy. Okay, so our parking lots and structures. Maybe we should delete structures. And I'm not sure what that means. If maybe we could be a little bit more specific about what structures is that like parking garages parking garages and sidewalks to and from. Okay. We could call it parking infrastructure or parking lots and parking lots and parking structures. Oh, I get it. Yes. Yeah. Let's just do a period and say, and then this will reduce cruising and help support a park once shop many policy. And then what's pricing policies that's like pricing for parking? Yes. Okay, so let's do a period there after park once shop many policy and say our parking pricing policies. How does this overlap with the transportation? In whole, let me, let me get this to a, like workable sentence first. Our parking parking policies in the downtown will encourage. So take out the word park, like say put the before downtown and then erase the word parking after downtown. Still needs to be fully discussed and identified in the future 2050 net zero plan, which is something we just included in the chapter. So that's good. Okay. So now what do we have comments about the strategy here? Isn't this all covered in the transportation section? Yeah, that's what I'm wondering too. Like it doesn't seem like there's anything who are different there. You know, I know we're going to consolidate them all and you know, review them together. So it could be that leaving it doesn't do any harm, but it seems like it maybe belongs more in the transportation section or that we covered this, but I don't guess, I guess I'm indifferent if we're going to bring them together. Well, I think the housing subcommittee also wanted to take off some things out of housing that we're going to be covered by transportation. So I think that's fine to do it as we go. I think it's more efficient to do it now if we're going to take it out. Question to Mike is, is there anything included here that's not covered by transportation as of this moment? And it was, I went through a little bit of that debate in my head when I was looking at consolidating these that some of this is included in the transportation plan. But in my mind, what I was trying to do is look at the accomplishment of our 2050 goal. And when I was basically collapsing them, I was finding them in two buckets. So I kept the ones that were intended on reducing vehicle miles traveled. You know, I, if I wanted to play devil's advocate, I would say, you know, does it really matter if we're all in electric vehicles or electric bike? You know, for being net zero, you know, just being a curmudgeon, just saying, hey, if I want to be zero, does the vehicle miles make that much of a difference? That's really a transportation issue as opposed to the vehicle fuel switching, which is the predominant way that we would get out of our fossil fuels. I think that's a really good point though. And I guess that would go towards taking the strategy out because not only is it redundant, but it's not even the main way we're going to achieve the goal. But I think ultimately a bunch of our other strategies are going to get at that and result in vehicle miles, fewer vehicle miles traveled. So why even bother having the argument of like, oh, if they're all EVs, you know, are we really, is that accomplishing our net zero goals? Like, okay, fine, you can debate that or not. You know, we want to reduce our demand on electric demand. So you're making some accomplishments there, but again, it doesn't really matter if we're going to, if all of our other goals are aiming to accomplish that anyhow. Okay, so who's in favor of removing number 11? Just get informally, just, okay, Barb wants to remove 11, anybody else? John, obviously. Is there anyone who wants to keep it and wants to speak to keeping it? No, we're moving, it makes sense to me. Yeah, I'm fine. We're moving it too, if we feel it's covered. Okay. All right, let's just remove it. We have the new prettier language version, if we want to put that in transportation. Probably won't be relevant though. Anyway, all right, so we're doing that. Let's go on to vehicle fuel switching initiative. This predominantly means helping our, or requiring residents to purchase electric alternatives to their personal vehicles, but it also can mean biodiesel and larger trucks. This initiative will increase availability of electric charging stations through new zoning regulations, municipal development of public chargers and education to promote the value of going electric to the public. This still needs to be fully discussed and identified in the future plan. Do we plan to change the zoning regulations or require new places to have electric charging stations? And I actually recall there's a state law related to that, isn't there? Well, again, what I was doing in doing the collapsing is simply going through and taking what MIAC wanted to do and putting it in there. It's all not necessarily things I would agree with, but is what they had included. I didn't want to go and artificially in between them and you take out their strategies. So with changes in technology, like I wonder if that's a smart thing to do, like we require everyone to do a certain thing and then technology changes. Yeah, and I suspect that this still remained in there because they didn't have knowledge of other chapters where it would show up perhaps more appropriately. So they just wanted it sort of like the placeholder to make sure that this topic is addressed but not necessarily that it has to be here. I think it really seems to be more appropriate in transportation. Just the part about just the last part though, right? Or do you mean the first part? Like I'm fine with the first part. I think, yeah, I think the whole thing because it's really about vehicles and if our focus in the energy chapter here is on predominantly on fixed structures, on buildings and energy use in the buildings that this is more appropriate in a transportation related chapter. I think fuel switching goes to energy more than transportation. Don't we talk about it in transportation though? The whole reason to do it is for the energy goals. But all right. Well, don't we have sections in the transportation that specifically talks about energy or if those been moved out? I'm just saying that it doesn't make sense to me to put them in both locations. That's all. And I think what I would point out is just to make sure that part of the reason we did this effort of having the aspirations, goals and strategies and breaking them into three pieces was to make sure that we had some consistency that things would work in both directions. If we eliminate this second set of strategies then we have no strategies to implement our goal which means we would might as well just eliminate our goal if we have no strategies to actually implement them. Yeah, that's been on my mind too. Like it's gonna be a big part of the 2050 goal. Shouldn't this be part of the transportation plan, however? Well, there's gonna be a reference to it. I mean, all these things overlap. I mean, we can't talk about transportation without talking about energy and we can't talk about either of these without talking about land use. So there's a certain amount of conversation that overlaps but who is responsible for certain pieces of it? You know, I don't expect the transportation committee to be working on fuel switching programs. You know, the city of Burlington has programs that will pay residents of Burlington to buy electric vehicles. I don't think that's a part of their transportation plan. That's a part of their energy plan because the transportation system works equally well whether you're driving a gas car whether you're driving electric car. The transportation system doesn't care. The energy plan does care. But are we sure that we don't have any mention of fuel switching now in the transportation plan? Well, we've gotta develop the plans and then, you know, get them all done. We haven't approved. All we've done is historic and now energy. So we'll have to be reviewing transportation when we get there. Well, I guess I would just say that in most of the discussions at MEAC that I took part of we were talking not about vehicles but much more about buildings and municipal operations. So if we wanna add this in, are we certain that we have a aspiration to match it? We do. It's actually quite essential to the 2050 goal of getting our, you know, getting the residents of to net zero. People can't have gasoline cars. Well, yeah, that was not my interpretation of what the original goals and strategies were for energy. But we could certainly adapt them. Because it's not, I mean, we have a lot to handle with just the buildings and given the fact that we have two different time frames to deal with as well that then adding in the vehicles makes one more level of complication in an already complicated chapter. And I don't know, frankly, I don't know who's really addressing that inside of MEAC. Maybe there is someone, but I think they're more focused on other areas. Well, you'll note that I put this as a low priority. And the reason for that is simply because I don't think this is something that, you know, if we were talking about all of the things that we have to work on, the fuel switching initiative is one that I would, personally, if I was making a recommendation to MEAC or to the city that I would be saying, I'm not gonna put a lot of effort and money into this right now because I would rather see whether the market takes care of it for us. And we'll know that as time goes on. If by 2030, most major auto manufacturers are only making electric vehicles, then we don't need to be spending a ton of our limited funds on helping people switch vehicle fuel. We could spend that money helping residents switch their homes. So that's why I put it as a low priority compared to the others. So does anyone else have interest in leaving 12 to the transportation chapter? The caveat there would be, if we take this out, we have to take goal eight out and we also have to amend the aspiration again. So not hearing anybody wanting, anybody else wanting to take it out. So we only have a few minutes left. So this is, we had tabled our discussion about the creating a energy coordinator for municipal buildings, making a strategy out of that. Do we still have interest in discussing that? Mike, has that not been identified numerous times in budget talks for the city? It has, but it wasn't in, it didn't fit into the implementation strategy simply because of how it's structured. You'll notice I did, in my version of the implementation strategy, I did have a conversation of adding that position because it is one that's come up. And I think as I, I'll say it again because I've said it a bunch of times, I think that the aspirations and goals that are here in the energy plan are very transformative and very bold. And it's one of the only chapters in the plan that has nobody working for it. And so I've always said, and I've said it in the council meetings and I've said it at MEAC that you're never going to be able to meet these bold goals without having somebody on the staff who is there to work on it. We have a full-time person who works on housing. We have a full-time person that works on, we have many full-time people that work on transportation, but I think it's always gonna be an issue when we start talking about trying to create programs to help people transition their fuel heating sources. We can't have a pilot program if we don't have anybody to run that pilot program. So. Can we put an energy coordinator question, Mark? You are suggesting that is the strategy. And so if we're serious about this, I think one question is, which of the goals are we falling under here? Is it goal two, which it has to do with municipal buildings? Or is it going to be goal two and goal seven, which is net zero for new residential and commercial buildings? And I think ultimately it'll come down to most of the goals. The way it had been envisioned in the past was that we needed a facilities manager. So that's one thing that's lacking. So we're always talking about, boy, couldn't we do something to make our buildings more energy efficient? But we don't have a facilities director in the city. So there's nobody who does the job. It's a huge oversight that we don't have somebody who's dedicated to doing that. And we also pointed out that when we wanna start doing outreach to the public that an energy coordinator, that same person who is our facilities director could also fill the role of the energy coordinator. So that's why you'll hear them used together is because the facilities director is really supposed to be helping us go through the energy audits and identifying projects to get done, hiring somebody to do the work, if that's appropriate, and advancing these efforts to get our buildings to be more energy efficient or net zero. And so that's why it's always been this facilities director slash energy coordinator. It's kind of a combined position. There's actually a third piece of that that's not related to energy that this facilities director would also be responsible for the parking because there isn't anybody who oversees the management of parking. So it's another thing that we were gonna hand to the facilities director. It's kind of related to facilities, but it's different. So we could phrase a strategy just getting into the practicalities based on what Mike's saying. We could phrase a strategy that says a city position that is responsible for. So it doesn't mean that they just do that. My question though is does everyone support including that strategy or how many people support? Steve Twomblay did do that as part of his position before, correct? Mike? Yeah, he does some of those things, but not all of them. Okay, yeah. And he's only part-time and he's doing it part-time and he's gonna be retiring, so. I'm pretty sure he's retiring. I'm going to re-audit and then he's gonna retire something. So it seems like it's an important element to include. And if we put it into the plan, it has a better chance of actually happening. And it's been talked about for so long and just hasn't happened. And I take your point, Mike, that this is the committee that has no, has a huge mandate, but it has no staff support in terms of the Energy Committee. I'm personally fine with doing it, but we need to get some, we got six minutes left. We need to get some words down so that we can hopefully pass this out so that we don't have to pick these strategies up again next time, but we can get all the work done. Didn't we have, did we have some wording on this before, Mike? No, we didn't. Not as a strategy. I'm, I like, you could say, identify and fund positions that the government to oversee energy coordination. Sounds sufficiently general. And to support MEAC, I mean, would that person would be the staff coordinator to the Energy Committee as well. I don't know if they'd need to me. It would certainly help. That's specific, but I assume you're typing something, Kirby. Can you see it? No, not until you hit return. To energy coordination, having to do with the buildings, meeting our net zero goals. Yeah, well, we can add that in the following sentence. What about to implementation of this energy plan? Yeah, that would be great to implement, dedicated to implementation of the energy plan and support of MEAC. Sounds good, simple. Would tie it to goal two and goal seven, I believe. Those are both having to do with buildings. Okay, is everyone okay with that? Sounds good. Any movement against this strategy? One reason why I like it is that we caught out some stuff that's relating to goal seven, so let's add something back in. We are talking at first about this person just being from a municipal. Is that correct? There's some static. No, it's for both. Well, that's even better. I don't know who's responsible for it. You mean what department? Yeah, we have DPW for all of these. Is this DPW or is it something else? It seems like a GPS. What do you say, Mike? It could be either one. It could be a DPW. I don't think they would necessarily oppose doing it. Just need some staff. It's to the question of who's the staff doing all this? If we had a facilities manager, would they work for DPW? They would probably be a separate department head. But until that position is created, it's DPW, so. Can we just say city council then, since they'll have to create this? Yeah, you could say city council. Yeah. Okay, so let's do that. And let's get this voted on and then in the meeting. Is everyone comfortable passing the strategies as they are now? I think with the caveat, if we have a motion to pass this with the caveat that Mike will further change number 13 here to match the format of the others, that makes sense to everyone. I move to pass to, okay, would everyone confirm these strategies, noting the strikeouts and with the understanding that number 13 may change a little bit in format. Okay, great. Great. And then we'll leave us for clarity with 11 strategies. Okay. Okay, do we do the second? Second. Second by Erin. Do we have any more discussion before we vote? Okay. Those in favor of passing the energy strategies, say aye. Aye. Aye. Okay. Any opposed? Okay. Strategies are done. Move to adjourn. Oh, we have a, okay. We have a motion to adjourn. Do we have a second? Second. We have a second from Stephanie. All those in favor of adjourning, say aye. Aye. Aye. Just like that, we're done. Okay, see everybody in two weeks. Thanks, have a good night, everybody. Hey guys.