Sustainability Commission

Sustainability Commission Meeting Minutes January 17, 2024 Attendees: Victoria Carlino, Nathanya Fonseka, Mark Graf, Nathan Inks, Naketa Jones, Riley Maher, Jonathan Matthews, Michael Tabbert, Jake Parcell, Shawn Keenan, Matthew Smith. Absent: Sheryl Burns Speakers may be referred to by initials. Speech attributed to speakers is paraphrased unless quoted. City Council, Department of Public Works, Green For Life, Sterling Heights, and Sterling Heights Sustainability Commission may be abbreviated as CC, DPW, GFL, SH, and SHSC, respectively. 1. Call to Order – 18:02 2. Pledge of Allegiance – 18:02 3. Roll Call – 18:02. Sheryl Burns absent. All else present. 4. Approval of Agenda – 18:03 – Moved by JM, seconded by NI. Motion passed unanimously. 5. Considerations – 18:04 – None 6. Approval of Minutes from 12/20/23 – 18:05 Postponed by MG, seconded by Mr. Tabbert. Passed without opposition. 7. Correspondence – 18:05 None. 8. Committee Reports – 18:06 a. R^3 Committee – Information shared as in the packet/drive. JM: Presents information as in his submitted documents. SHSC gives the go-ahead to contact the school districts for the Green Schools initiative. b. Green Energy Committee – 18:14 NI: Presents information as in the report. The ordinance is still being reviewed by legal. c. Stormwater and Wetlands Committee – 18:15. MS: Presents information as in the report. NI suggests a meeting between him and MS might be good to share research they’ve done on these matters over the past months. The go-ahead is given to arrange a meeting with Clinton River Watershed. d. Native Plantings – 18:19 NI: Presents information as in the report. MS adds the native plant sale was pushed back due to the coordinator going through chemo treatments and not wanting to expand the event into unfamiliar territory during that time.  e. Trees – 18:22 NI: Presents information as in the report. The committee will begin plans for a potential Arbor Day event. Tree City award has been applied for by RF. f. MI Healthy Climate – 18:23 – Nothing this month 9. Old Business – 18:23 a. Sustainability Self-Assessment Review RF: Displays spreadsheet with the self-assessment which Dr. Parcell reviewed from last time. MG insisted we go item by item. Supporting evidence added where appropriate. b. Bee Keeping Ordinance Update – 19:27 AR: City attorneys are reviewing them, but they won’t make it back to SHSC before they make it to CC in February. All: A discussion ensues regarding the beekeeping ordinance. As it includes a limitation to one hive in its current incarnation, MS, MG, and JM favor rejecting support of the ordinance. MS: Dispenses wisdom as to the splitting of hives & when bees signal a desire to do so. NI: Suggests instead of an outright rejection, a motion be made by SHSC to recommend CC or city administration/attorney consult an apiarist or knowledgeable organization (such as the MSU extension) to consider amendments prior to moving forward with the beekeeping ordinance. JM: Makes a motion to the above point. NI supports it. During discussion, NI says he will make an amendment to the resolution for wordsmithing and to ensure the ordinance comes back to SHSC prior to CC moving forward with the ordinance. JM: Amends ordinance to comply with the above discussed potential adjustments. NI: Adds he will append some of the justifications for the WHEREAS statements and share the written version tonight/tomorrow with SHSC. All: A role-call vote on the motion ensued. It passed 8-0. c. Sustainability Plan Update – 19:58 AR: Asks SHSC whether a full rewrite was desired, a section-by-section review, etc. RF: Reminds SHSC a discussion occurred where it was highlighted a full rewrite may be desired to be delayed until the land use plan is completed. AR: A climate action plan will be started once data arrives. It’s about a 4-6 week return once ICLEI returns SH’s data. A consultant in Ann Arbor is creating the climate action plan, and they’ve worked with ICLEI before.  NI: What’s the timeline for the master plan update? AR: Maybe a year to complete it all. MG: Dr. Parcell said it was roughly a 14-month process. AR: And that already started, so likely a year and change. We met about this in December, so 14 months from then. NI: What’s SHSC’s role of input in this process? AR: There will be a steering committee with the chairs of the major boards & commissions along with SH staff. NI: What’s the plan for public hearings and input? AR: There’s a plan for forums and input – the public engagement plan will come into fuller force in February-March when the unveiling occurs. JM: Does not favor a full re-write of the sustainability plan as it took the SHSC more than the master plan timeline to create it in the first place. MG: Also, the Sustainability Self-assessment Review tackles many of these as it. NI: We did say we’d at least update the status of the action items. We should also list the memberships SHSC has helped forge connections with. Regarding the Sustainability Self- assessment Review, as there are 4 sections to it, let’s put the revisions to the Sustainability Plan – if necessary – in May. We can then determine how many meetings this might take. Also, any updated plans – such as the EV and non-motorized – should be included. d. Strategic Planning – 20:11 AR: There is a big sustainability chunk to this. There is a video starring AR, NI, and MG as part of this chunk. The “Think Green” sustainability program will be featured, and the benefits of trees will be discussed. AR will then provide direction with where SH’s tree trend is desired to go. A segment will be dedicated to acquisition of land in the SW of the city for a park, and there will also be a section about EVs. Prior to all this, SH’s new branding will be unveiled. LUNCH WILL BE SERVED; RF promises! e. Green House Gas Inventory Update – 20:15 AR: Updated SHSC on the status of this previously in the meeting. One data request form had been returned by DTE. A call was received today for one of the community-wide forms regarding direction to complete the form. NI: Has any resistance or negative feedback been received? AR: No. Some parties had questions about how to get data they might not collect specifically. f. Treekeeper – 20:20  AR: Any expenses over $10,000 must go to CC. Davey was contacted to potentially avoid this and backquoted the expenses to what it used to be – under $10,000. They send a technology agreement which had a hold-harmless and indemnification clause which neither wide was willing to remove, so it needs to be approved by CC anyway. AR is meeting about this tomorrow, and it will likely be on the Feb. 20 agenda. 10. New Business – 20:20 [NEW ITEM ADDED BY RF] – Sustainability Annual Report for 2023. AR: Suggestion to move this to March 5th. Many people will not be able to make this meeting. MG: What report is this? NI: The annual report must be delivered in January, but a presentation need not occur until February or as early as SH’s calendar permits. JM: Moved to approve the report pending changes. MT seconded. Motion passes unanimously. a. Mosquito Control – 20:26 AR: Presented information on the mosquito control processes and materials the city applies based on the information document shared in the drive. MG: This information was provided from parks and recreation? AR: Yes. RF: One potential task for the native plantings committee is to find alternatives with at least the same efficacy as the current method & materials. MT: It has been recorded on this record he HATES mosquitoes as he requested. b. EV Master Plan Implementation – 20:31 NI: I think it makes sense to look at the recommendations for this plan tonight unless [AR & RF] feel it does not. [Plan is highlighted on screen.] Was there a discussion of how many of the vehicle fleet of the city might be converted and by when? AR: Not yet, and we’re still waiting to see if the pilot program has been successful or not.  NI: Despite what the plan says, I don’t think much has been done to label M- 59 and M-53 as electric corridors. AR: 1st quarter 2024 is when the electric chargers should be installed on city properties. NI: That’s now and ends in March. A discussion ensues regarding what type of charging units these are, how many, and which point in time they aligned with the proposal from State Electric. What exactly did SH’s agreement with them indicate? If the press release is a mistake, that’s not a big deal, but if a deal was made for a different model and that’s now not the case, I’d like to know why. AR: The cost is capped at 150% of the rate of electricity. RM: The Michigan Public Service Commission must provide a justification for why rate changes are taking place when they do. I can determine what rate would be paid if given some time. NI: Are municipalities charged the same way with time-of-day rates? RM: No, but I don’t know exactly what the provision is at this time. AR: Please look into the $/KWh provided to the EV chargers. The cost to consumers would be 150% of whatever that it. NI: Suggests land use plan should speak to how EV charging will be encouraged. 11. Citizen Participation – 20:49 Ava Miller – Graduated from Michigan Tech with her degree in Sustainability Science & Society and will be interning with the office of planning in the coming days. 12. Adjournment. Moved by JM, support by MT. Passed unanimously. 20:53.