Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Okay. Uh, it is 5:33. I will call the March 10th, 2026 Salem Planning Commission meeting to order. Uh, much more timely than our last meeting. So, uh, Megan, can we do roll call? Commissioner Infonte. Hi. Commissioner Brybeck here. Commissioner Levvin. Commissioner Slater here. Commissioner VR Bandelle here. Commissioner RHS here. Commissioner Tev here. Commissioner Heler here. Commissioner Fa is excused. And we have quorum.

Our trusty public member is not here today. Um but if any public comment no on the internet. No. Okay, that makes that easy. Uh consent calendar. I believe the only item that we have is an approval of the minutes. Commissioner Frybeck, I think it's your motion. Yep. Um I move to approve the minutes of the March 10th, 2026 planning commission meeting. Lacking a VP of this meeting. Does anyone want to second that? I'll Okay. Uh move to February 24th. I'm abstaining.

No, he can he correct the February 24th minute. He said March 10th committ February 24th. I was looking at if he's in favor. Um yeah. Can I amend my motion? Yeah. We will consider it corrected to the February 4th, 2026 uh minutes. February 24th. Oh my god, I'm leaving. Okay. Do we have a second on the corrected? Yes. Okay. Moved and seconded. Hopefully correctly. Um any discussion, amendments?

No. Uh hearing none, I will move to voting. Commissioner Infonte. Hi. Commissioner Frybeck. Hi. Commissioner Levin. Hi. Commissioner Slater. Abstain. Commissioner Via Verendell. I. Commissioner Rhodess. I. Commissioner Tev. I. Commissioner Heler. I. Uh. Motion to approve whatever minutes those are. Passes.

Uh, no resolutions, no action items. There's no public hearing. Uh, are there any special orders of business? I don't see any on the agenda. Uh, yep. Okay. Uh, information reports. Uh, I believe we have one presenter here for two plan updates. So, I will let you start.

Good. items plan will be to reduce and scenario based started uh this project was a funded opportunity from efficiency and energy.

Pardon me, but I can't hear the speaker. Sorry, I was misled by the color of the button. Okay, Megan, go see if it's

Hi, uh Juliana Douglas, a climate action plan manager, and we're going to be discussing the municipal energy master plan. Um just briefly, I was talking about how the grant was or the project was funded through a grant from the um US Department of Energy for $214,000ish dollars and um that has covered the entirety of the project. Um we initially were more ambitious wanting it to cover more of the city's uh municipal energy. Um but after we went out for the first round of bids, we found out that um our ambition was not to the level of the uh funded opportunities. So we had to scale it back. So we looked at uh just the municipal buildings

and we're calling this phase one. So, um, we asked them to find ways that we could fund, uh, opportunities to, uh, conserve energy. And so, they gave us three categories, three buckets where we could find funding. Uh, first is financing alternatives. Um the top one in this item is probably the most beneficial, but it has some connotations from uh a few decades ago. So, energy savings performance contracting, if you were around in the 70s, it got kind of a bad rep, but basically what it is is it's looking at a portfolio of options and identifying ways to conserve energy and having a energy savings performance company pay for that upfront and then you pay them back based on the guaranteed savings that those upgrades would provide. Um the problem previously was it didn't have that performance uh guarantee to it and so you would be paying this company and you wouldn't have as efficient as they'd originally promised. So you'd still be paying high energy bills and on top of that a high um energy savings performance contracting uh company. So um they have improved the uh mechanism for that and so that one's a really good uh option. There's green revolving fund which is basically the same thing except for it's internally funded. So you put the money up front and then you pay yourself back through a different bank account um based on uh energy savings. um that one doesn't have the performance guarantee. So you have to do some good metrics going into it to make sure that you are paying yourself back. Um bonds are a

pretty basic one but they are used a lot in these types of work. Uh and then CPACE or uh commercial property assessed clean energy is a mechanism that's available in Oregon. Each municipality has to create their own program. The city of Salem is looking at a program. it would not be eligible for um government buildings, but we operate a lot of private buildings. So, it's something that the private buildings that we lease would be eligible for that type of an improvement. Um and then, uh federal opportunities. Um the IRA clean energy tax credits um while they have been significantly scaled back since the change of administration, they are still um moving forward. A lot of those do sunset um pretty soon. So uh those are limited. Uh the ones that have the longest uh operations for that would be um energies such as geothermal and hydroelect electric uh solar and um wind energies are the first ones to go as well as electric vehicles. Um grid resilience or sorry department of energy grants um those are again hit and miss with the change in administration. uh grid resilience and innovation partnerships. Um that is not as much of a grant as it would be um leveraging some private financing um but through a federal government mechanism. Uh and then building resilient infrastructures, that one is um also known as brick and that one is another grant opportunity um through the federal government. Uh and then there's uh incentives, rebates,

and technical assistance. Um the city already really leverages Energy Trust of Oregon incentives. Um and that's similar to uh what is available through utility incentive programs. Um that would be for if we were using any upgrades that weren't in um PGE, Northwest Natural Territory, and we only have limited um items that are outside of those. in Salem Electric territory. Um Oregon Department of Energy grants, we've been really successful with some of these in the past. Um they have less funding moving forward, which isn't surprising. So um understanding when those are coming available. Um notably, we got uh 2.1 million from uh the CREP grants and um those include work on the public works building. um as well as some uh planning. Uh and then state energy uh program grant assistance. Um that's uh that and the energy star are looking at um more technical assistance than it would be any funding. Um, we went through about 40 buildings, um, 20 of them with on-site audits and, uh, the ones that were chosen were based on how variable they were from the building stock that is more typical. So, we have very new buildings, our uh, 2024 public works operations building. We have very old buildings. So we have several uh museums and they have different characteristics in terms of energy efficiency and operations. Um and when we were looking at the different buildings, we decided to classify them based on what they're used

for. And so we made uh five broad categories of classifications. Um emergency would be police, fire, um public works, uh self-explanatory on that one. transportation. We uh parsed that out because we have several uh parking garages and we have the airport and so we put those in transportation. Civic was um center 50 plus the museums and some of the historical homes. And then administrative uh includes it um and HR as well as uh some of the other general buildings. Um and then on this one, uh notably we did not include the civic center just due to the timing of the construction. We didn't have a great time to look at that and give that that baseline. Um this uh graphic shows the different sizes of the dots are how many square how much square footage is in that category. Um, so transportation has a lot, but not the majority of that isn't airond conditioned. Um, Civic has one of the larger ones that is air conditioned. And, um, then if you're looking at the bottom, the um, x-axis, that's going to be the total consumption of energy in a year. And the, um, y-axis is the cost. So those those bubbles kind of show the the relation between those and the size of the um square footage.

Can I ask just a quick question fast on that? Uh do they have different energy sources? Like why is the why is the cost and the consumption not totally linear?

Yes. So they we have several different energy providers. We have um PGE, um Northwest Natural, uh we have Salem Electric, and we have Pacific Power. And so there's not like a one for one cost. And then even even in just PGE's portfolio, we have different cost rates based on the amount of consumption from that building. So it actually got a lot more complex. This is trying to like get a little bit more of a bite-size into it. Okay. Yeah, that makes sense. Thank you.

So, when we looked at how do we um reduce this energy consumption, uh they provided a pathway forward and so it's in these three phases. Um the first phase was suggested at one to three years looking at kind of the the easier wins and so this is LED retrofits control optimization plug load management and initial sto sol solar and storage at critical sites. Um they included that due to the sun setting of some of those uh funds and seeing if there could be some traction on getting um a hold of some of those clean energy credits. Um that one would be a smaller reduction between six and 10%. Phase two looking at 5 to 10 years. Um that's going to be HVAC modernization. And so where it's a smaller room that we can do heat pumps for larger uh areas. We can do VRF or variable refrigerant flows which is basically piggybacking a bunch of heat pumps on top of each other. And that is um a highly engineered approach. Uh, and so it works um well, but it's expensive. Um, energy uh sorry, envelope improvements, uh, building automation system, light, uh, targeted solar and storage at high priority um, locations including uh, public works operations and civic center. That uh, slew of the package would be between 15 and 22% reduction. And then um the net zero pathway would get us to 35 to 50%. So if you add all those up, it's around um 82%. So it's not a true net zero, but it's a significant reduction. And that last bit would be portfolio scale electrification, uh renewable integration, PV canopies and rooftop

solar, as well as battery storage and micro grid readiness. Um, and as you can imagine, these are not uh cheap. Uh, so if you look on this, we went through the different types of upgrades and what those cost. Um, so the lowest uh in terms of savings is also the lowest cost. So if we're looking at plug load management, we could start

No, this is for all of it. Yeah. Um these are just the different items uh pulled out from the various phases. So um the the plug load management is going to be the lowest cost and the lowest um savings and then kind of respectively. Uh some of the highest costs are going to be HVAC and solar and battery and they come with the uh most emissions reduction. We did scenario-based analysis. So, we looked at a couple of different options on how to move forward. They looked at business as usual, efficiency only, efficiency and electrification, and integrated renewables and resilience. Um, just to show a little bit of the background, this again is all in the report. Um, and then looking at how that worked out. And just so we're all on the same page, this is non-cumulative. So these are different trajectories. So adding up, they still go to close to 100%. But those are just uh the the ways that they would move forward. Um the business as usual, it shows an expansion and the um efficiency only and efficiency plus electrification show um pretty significant decreases. And then the most significant decrease is from the integrated resilience and renewables. um opportunities to increase resiliency. So they were looking at where we would have the most impact from providing um uh solar and storage or other types of renewable opportunities. And um when we were looking at that, uh what we wanted to see is what needed to be powered. And so those critical energy loads are HVAC

systems, lighting, communications or computers. And then some other things if we are considering more of a resilience hub approach uh as opposed to just uh minimal operations for city functions, we would also include EV charging and fuel pumps as well as kitchen uh equipment and shelters. Um and then we wanted to look at what it would be to have that um c minimum capacity for 36 to 72 hours. Um so one of the uh one of the items that I pulled out of the report was the libraries and we already have in that red outlined box, we already have some solar there, but um they uh they projected what we would need to have enough to do a 36-hour outage. uh under uh typicalish loads. Um and so uh they they did that and so it would be roughly um an additional 60% of the roof would be covered. Um we looked at several uh buildings. There were only three that we included in the report. Um we they wanted to include WVCC but that is one of the least sites. So, we we uh removed that. But, uh moving forward, if we get uh a 911 call center that's city-owned, that would be a really good opportunity. Um there are some areas that are less desirable just based on use and and would it be a essential service during um during uh severe weather? Any questions on the municipal energy master plan? It's very technical and it is a lot and if you read through all of it, I highly applaud you and thank you.

I of course have a question. Um, could you go back to the slide where it looked at the different opportunities or the different that one? Okay. So, I'm I'm curious as to which of these are things that are likely to happen over time because we're upgrading systems or we've come to the end of end of life for some systems and we're just going to get them because that's the current practice or the most efficient practice and other things that normally wouldn't happen unless we make like a policy decision to make that happen. So, for example, I assume like a industry-wide or a sitewide solar PV and battery system is not something that would just happen. That would be a significant policy decision, whereas maybe HVAC upgrades would kind of happen through a natural life cycle process.

Yeah. So, great question. Um, LED lighting upgrades, there's been some uh legislative requirements phasing out some uh fluorescents. Um, and so we already are going through that. Um, and uh, we do those as they burn out. We replace the ballasts and the lights. Um, plug load management is is one that we're trying to move towards. We're trying to update our energy policy to be more mindful of that. Um, especially since it's a a lowcost venture. Um, BAS or building automation systems and controls automation. um when there are new construction at a certain threshold, we do try and add that and we try and add in everything that makes sense, which a lot of it does, but there's a lot of cost constraints. So there's not always a we're doing these upgrades, so we're going to add in um XYZ extra. Um so those are probably the main ones. Um HVAC obviously does get replaced when it is no longer operating, but there's it's not always getting replaced to the most efficient and so this is looking at more like going beyond what is standard minimum.

So and maybe what is not fully cost recoverable I assume then right okay we be volunteering to sp to spend more in order to get that reduction. Yes.

Yeah. Okay. I was curious, you mentioned on uh for like electrification, we would see our emissions go down, but I was just kind of looking at the um the conversion factors and it seems like if like you had like a 100 ABTUs of either say electricity, you would produce more carbon emissions than 100,000 or 100 KBTUs that would have been produced by natural gas. I was kind of curious how the electricity reduction shows up on here. Is this what you're talking about?

Uh, yes.

Yeah. So, um, the Ruby I got it switched around. Okay. the electricity uh reductions on the efficiency and electrification. Um it's because we'd be adding more items from natural gas to electricity. So we'd be doing that fuel switching. It would move from um a a emissions under electricity to emissions under natural gas. And so it would be increasing that from a reduction to a um net neutral. So it would still be a more efficient item than it currently is, but it would also be adding that to the ledger of the electricity. If that that makes sense. I was kind of um talking more like like if you look at one of these categories uh for like total annual utility consumption just for your administrative category you're it looks like it's using 8 million uh KBTUs if

oh sorry on just a second he's on page 19 page 19 you need a copy of the yeah trick questions, man. It wasn't as a question reference. Yeah. Where you are. So,

that's a good that's a good idea. Um, so yeah, I was on page 19 and 18 is where the the conversion factors are. So on on 19 I was looking at just you know say you're right now you're using 8 million KBTUs of natural gas. If you electrify would you be using the same amount of KBTUs or would you be using less? You'd be using less because as you electrify you'd be improving on the efficiency of the um item.

Okay, cool. And that I think answers my second question. Now I did the um conversion on here. Um, and I just saw that uh 100 KBTUs uh produced by natural gas, just maybe my math was off, but produces like one and a half times the amount of emissions is the same amount of KBTs as electricity, which didn't seem to be lining up, but I think the efficiency gains from electricity could outweigh that. That seems right.

So, I have I think a slightly less technical question. Uh, if you go back to the slide that was just up there a second ago, um, I think Commissioner Slater was talking to uh, nope. Yep, that one right there. Uh the estimated savings is at.138 per kilowatt hour which um is a better rate than I pay for my electricity. Um and with data centers coming in uh and demands for electricity going kind of through the roof, you know, I think we should expect that number to go up. Um and so the cost savings would also go up, right? Because we're going to pay more for electricity from the utility. Uh almost certainly.

Yes. And these are at current bulk rates. So this is like our our lowest cost rate for our highest consumers. So these are all economically very conservative values that likely Yes. I think based you know it's all variable but based on reality we would expect to save more money than this.

Yes. And if we go through an energy savings performance contracting evaluation, they do highlevel projections of what they anticipate the cost increases to be and they base your payments off of that reduction. And so they have very very technical, high-end, very specific calculations based on that. This is just high level. So then we're on the same page conservative.

Okay. Um, okay. I think that was that was kind of the gist of my question. So, the people that are really deep diving into this are factoring in that they assume that in the future these rates are going up and to really accurately address whether we're creating efficiencies for both energy and cost, you know, we should be looking at the right prices for electricity. So,

exactly. And when we have kind of these internal discussions of, well, this is how much we're currently paying. What does it matter if we improve efficiencies? It's like, well, if we're paying this anyway, then even if we just recuperate our costs, it means that we're paying, you know, this much less and we're contributing this much less to um capacity of the grid. Okay. Thank you. Have a question.

Commissioner, go on. Um, moving this plan forward, um, do you anticipate that the city's uh, real estate leasing department activity will include um, any if energy efficiency into their uh, property request stating that it needs to be a leads level building of you know whatever that that degree is.

I do not think that we will ever require lead certification due to the tremendous cost that goes along with that effort. Um I I do think that um with uh state house or sorry house bill 3409 and the building performance standards that's going to deal with a lot of the efficiency questions right there and it'll require um attaining a certain uh EUI for um each property anyway. So I think that that will help be one of the drivers. But the other um item that uh I've been talking to real estate about is about how there is a um there is an equity issue on like if you're co- not habitating but co-leasasing with people that are using more energy and so we we are having these conversations about like what is the correct approach and I think that there's um some metering issues that that can be sorted out and um also just having a a citywide approach that um prefers higher efficiency will will deal with a lot of that. I don't think that we need to require uh lead certification. Okay.

Um just looking at page uh 28 on the report, the um you have the key programs and funding and I know you talked about the funding um process at the beginning of your presentation. What's the um how what's the timeline for applying for those different um uh revenue streams and um is that on a timetable to get done or where where are you guys at in the process? for funding.

Yeah, each project requires its own funding approach. And so, um, except for energy savings performance contracting, you create kind of a a a portfolio style approach, all the other ones you'd have to like pace out. Um, for some of the different items, um, we have one solar project that looks like it could be a good fit for the clean energy tax credits. Um other ones the energy trust uh has uh rolling timelines so we don't have a lot of push on getting those through in a certain time. Um and we're able to apply just based on when the projects come available. Um and uh bonds they again can come up as um as the projects come up. So, it's it's not necessarily something that we have to meet the grant funding to the projects except for some of those clean energy tax credits. Um, everything else we can meet the projects with the funding and all the funding for this is coming from these or are you looking at kind of the the tax base or the city for some of the funding on this? We are currently looking at having the funding be grant funded or direct pay funded. Um, but it kind of is project specific. Um, I'm I'm not asking for any tax money at this point, but I think that there will be a point where a city approach might include um using some general fund funding. Um, and that's above and beyond what's currently general fund funded for for things like building um operation and maintenance.

I'll ask one. Um, a while ago the city did a a solar study at the airport. Can you remind us of what the outcome of that was? that we didn't have a good option until they um built a new tower. A new tower for the airport. Yes, it's a placement. It's the reflectivity study. So, it would be not good for the air traffic controllers. Thank you. Now that there's no airline there, are we going to revisit that? I have not been privy to this. I I knew the answer was no, but I thought I'd answer.

My clicker isn't working. Could you advance me a few slides? Oh, no. Nope, it's not. Oh, I think I have power back. Thank you. Um, so if anyone needs this, um, otherwise, uh, so in the annual report, um, I started with, uh, where are we in terms of progress and there are 183 strategies. So I broke those down um according to uh the rubric that's in the report. Not started yet means that we haven't made any progress on that. In progress is kind of the first step. Ongoing is where it's in a maintenance phase and some uh some strategies will stay on the ongoing because they will continue to be processed out. Uh and then some will eventually go to a completed. A good example of that is having workshops will remain in the ongoing whereas uh creating a policy will eventually have an endpoint and be completed and then under review that's where it's outside of the city's purview. It's something that's like in state or federal uh legal uh sticky situations that we can't really push forward anymore on. Um, for the not started yet, we want to see that going down and has been. Uh, for the in progress, ongoing and completed, we want to see those increase. Those have been. For the under review, we'd like to see that either going down or staying stagnant. That one increased slightly over last year, but um, again, that's such a small percentage. I'm not particularly worried about it. Just

keeping an eye on it. Um, and then between 2023 and 2024, I added in a new category for uh in progress. And so the the ongoing was was parsed into kind of a new start to a uh strategy and one that had been in a maintenance phase. Um, and then for this I went through the uh work plan for the 2025 and I um each task I aligned with the strategy that it's referencing and where those uh strategies are currently um at as the end of 2025. Um all of the strategies that were in the work plan had progress on them. Um, and all of the uh all of the tasks were categorized like that because a lot of single tasks hit on multiple strategies. And um as the climate action plan committee meets, we go over the different strategies and kind of give an update of what those uh progresses are. Um, and then one of the big questions was how are things getting funded after everything at the federal administration changed kind of the landscape for sustainability funding? Um, as of the end of 2025, this was the current status. Um I wanted to include this because we had um several opportunities revoked and that was at the federal level. Um there is some conversation

about will those be clawed back or will they not. Um and uh as of last month one of them one of the technical assistances did get brought back. So, um, the charge smart bronze, the electrification coalition, uh, getting a charge smart certification, uh, they were reinstated for their federal, uh, award and so we will be making progress on that in 2026, but it wasn't one that we could wrap up in 2025. Um, were there any questions on any of the funding? I know that this has been this was a big hot topic in the CAP committee. So, okay. Um, and then not every strategy I reported on was something that I personally um did. So, uh I just get to take credit for other people's work is is that part of the uh report. So, we had downtown uh paid parking and we had um the transit signal priority, a different TSP than you've probably heard of, but this one is um when the buses are running behind, they can either have a green light extended so then they can uh kind of remain on time or have um the I think that that's the main one is like the the green light extending to allow them through the intersection. Um, and so there is one uh route, route 11, that has that um currently and they're they're looking to other opportunities where that would work. And then we did uh several workshops and um we did our first bike month with uh six different uh events throughout the month of May um to engage folks on active transportation. We did um home uh weatherization and energy efficiency webinar or not webinar uh workshop and

we did a plant walk uh with the Maran Soil Water Conservation District and we had Solar Oregon come out for a how-to solar and storage workshop. That's from our annual report. Any questions? Do you happen to know what percentage of the city's energy use or sources are renewable?

Um, not off the top of my head. Uh, based on where we get the majority, I think that we're around a, you know, I I don't have that one. We have a substantial amount of um PPAs. So we get sorry power purchase agreement. So we get quite a a decent amount of our energy from renewable sources. Um, I was curious if you could talk about your uh commuter benefits programs and other things you guys are working on on page 9, the TL 21 and TL 18.

Yes. Um, so TL 18 is about uh kind of creating a model for um other organizations based off of Salem. So, we kind of need that one for TL uh 21 if I have that correct. Let me double check in here. Yeah. So, um TL21 is about um the city's uh employees and then TL18 is about kind of creating a a template for other organizations. So TL21 is using the um get there Oregon challenge and we had a uh substantial increase in participation in 2025 over 2024. Um, we did outreach to our staff and we were using the Get There Oregon platform to have staff log their trips uh of other than drive alone trips and we had quite a few folks that were even um logging their walks to get coffee in the middle of the day. So, it was um a pretty good uh employee engagement opportunity and um people did kind of have those um competitions with each other. So, it was it was a good turnout for that one. Um, but we also found out that in the Parkway building, some of our staff are avid bikers and so they've created their own bike room. Um, and uh we've just been finding more ways to engage on on um folks who are uh using active transit and we are um we're improving our accessibility. So, we have um bike storage lockers that weren't weren't working downtown. And so, when we repurpose them, we repurpose them on on city lots and then we have kind of like rental locker type locks

where you can just pull out the lock and then you have a secure bike storage and um so our staff have been able to use that as well. Cool. Um, have you guys surveyed staff on what barriers might be present to them? Like why they don't walk, bike, or take the bus to work? Yes. And it was time, as I'm sure you could imagine. Uh, it was time and distance. And, um, I think the average distance was around like seven miles away from their work site. Thank you. Go ahead.

Thank you for your presentation and all your work. Um, so far, uh, I have kind of a big picture question for you. Um, so on in the report, there's a section, let's see, page five. Um it's just kind of where we're at, how you know the not started, in progress, ongoing, etc. Um I know at this phase we're kind of still grabbing lowhanging fruit. Um and that probably our effectiveness will taper off the further we get into this process. Um I have two questions. one, what is do you have an exciting piece that you're waiting to fall to come together um that will maybe be rewarding in some way but get a good chunk closer to our goal uh or goals? Um and two, how are we on our 2035 goal? Great questions. Um, so one of the kind of disappointing parts is like when we find like a really big win, if we're looking at our 2035 goal, um, so just so everybody's on the same page, 2035, we're we're looking for a 50% reduction from our 2016 baseline greenhouse gas emissions. Um, when I find a really big project and I like do all of the calculations to figure out how much percentage we can get down, um, the most I've ever gotten down was like 1 to 2%. So, um it's it's a little demoralizing um because we're going to need so many of these big projects to fall into place to to meet those goals. Um and there's a a kernel of truth that the city doesn't have enough scope to get there and we need, you know, a clean energy grid to to make some of these big

changes. And so, House Bill 2021 and working on um decarbonization of our energy grid as a whole is really important to getting close to our emission reductions goals. Um, but I think the the closest that we will get from work that we are currently doing is um the municipal energy master plan and being able to um to make some of those big investments and and it is it is an investment and they will be things that cost money upfront and there's no way around that and that is a difficult position to be in in uh these budget times. So, it's it's going to need to have more buyin than it currently has to move forward.

I suspect it as much. Thank you. So, the municipal energy plan is projected out through 25 years. Is that the case? Is it No. Um, we had that originally in the first RFP. I think that we projected it out 10 or 15 years. So, it does coincide with the 2035 now myself. We we changed that one several times, but here I think it's Yeah, I'm seeing 2035.

2035. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions?

Thank you.

Okay. Well, I think those were two very good u updates. So thank you. Um subcommittee reports we are going to have a wetlands committee meeting this evening. Um I don't any other not just report action. Yes action. Subcommittee action this evening. Is there a transportation subcommittee report or is that still a has been disbanded? Been disbanded. Okay. I guess we have no reports then. Uh planning administrators report.

Fast. Sorry clicking. Um no we just we don't have any items for our next meeting which sorry my laptop um died during this meeting so to look at my phone the next meeting would be the 24th. So do we want to cancel that meeting be March 24th two weeks from today? Any nods?

President we can cancel that one. Um, and I don't know that we don't currently have any items for April, but I suspect we will. So, April 14th would be our next meeting. I don't think I have anything else besides that. Okay. Okay. I have a question. So, thank you. Can you update us on the um the repairing inventory? Um, we have received a draft of the phase one data from the consultant and the staff are reviewing it and working through the draft that we received.

And does that include So, you just said data. So, that includes the mapping and Okay, great. Thank you. Right. Uh, commissioner comments for the good of the order. I don't know if we have any. Um, but I I I did have a thought. This is not really for the good of the order, but uh I don't know if anyone else uses the parking meters downtown. I will note that you have to put your credit card in really really far and I find it very obnoxious. So, if there's any way for the next round of machines for it to not be quite so hard to get my card in and out, just want to throw that out there. Um since I have this opportunity to say that. Uh any public comment?

Oh Okay. No public comment. Uh yes, well subcommittee meeting is immediately afterwards which is now meeting adjourned for the well and subcommittee.