HomeMy WebLinkAbout5/21/2024 Item 7b, Smith
carolyn smith <
To:E-mail Council Website
Subject:Item 7b, Draft Ordinance: Energy Efficiency Renovation Policy
This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond.
Mayor Stewart and Council Members,
While many appreciate the city's climate change efforts and policies, this proposed Energy
Efficient Renovation Policy is going to create financial hardship for many middle-income
families who wish to make improvements to their homes. The requirements in this policy
will significantly drive up the cost of a reasonable remodel into becoming unaffordable for
these families. Unless a homeowner has a large cash source, most have to re-finance
their homes for sufficient funds to pay for a remodel. With the current interest rates and
cost of labor, parts and equipment, the cost of remodels has risen significantly over the
past 5 years and this proposed policy will only drive up those costs even more. Obviously,
the less one has to borrow, the better for their future financial health, so trying to keep
costs reasonable is mandatory for many. Since Staff's report is void of pricing for most of
the suggested mandates, there is no way a resident, or council for that matter, to know
how much added financial burden this policy would have on residents. Also, prices will
most likely continue to go upward into 2025. I would think you'd need to weigh this into
your decision before mandating these requirements, since some of them will require
significant expenditures.
I hope council members will look at this policy through the lens of many who struggle financially in
SLO just to keep food on the table and pay their ongoing living expenses that have risen year over
year like water, sewer, groceries, utilities, insurances, etc. There must be a balance analysis--do the
limited benefits from this policy outweigh the financial burdens it places on many of your hard-working
constituents? Do these requirements leave out a vast majority of families who just won't be able to
afford to comply?
I present to you by way of an example: In my middle-class neighborhood, there is a
Hispanic single hard-working widowed mother who purchased her home years ago when
she was married. Her home was built in 1971 and is in dire need of remodeling. She has
been excited about her plans to re-finance her house (which has accumulated equity over
the years) for a remodel. I know she will be on a very tight budget for her kitchen, living
room, and bathroom improvements (most likely over the 500 sq. ft. limit). If she is
required, under this energy efficient policy, to pay for some of the mandated upgrades,
there is no doubt that her project will become cost prohibitive. Is that what this city hopes
to accomplish by adopting these requirements--prevent single working mothers, like my
neighbor, the opportunity to improve their living conditions? What about my other
1
neighbors who just had their second baby and want to remodel and add onto their
home? These requirements will most likely prohibit them from doing so due to the
significant increased costs this policy requires. While there is mention of hardship
deductions, there's no information on who would determine what is a hardship and what
income level that would involve, Expecting everyone, no matter what their financial
circumstances, to bear significantly more expense to comply with this policy, that will not
have a substantial benefit toward climate change, is unfair and allows only the affluent the
opportunity to improve their living conditions.
There are also potential unintended consequences that these proposed requirements
would create. I've already heard from some who work in the building industry that many
will just find a way around these requirements by not applying for a permit for their
renovation that should be permitted and doing it in stages, even if it has to be a year apart,
to keep it under 500 sq. ft. That could result in illegal construction and certainly won't help
your energy efficiency goals. Additionally, if much needed improvements are not made
due to the additional expenses required under this policy, how will that help improve our
deteriorating housing stock?
Another unintended consequence is the problem of the shortage of contractors and
workers able and qualified to do some of this specialized work. While there is mention in
Staff's report that there are “generally” enough workers in the area, many will tell you that
when doing any kind of construction--new home or remodel--there just aren't enough
construction contractors and/or qualified workers in our area to complete a project in a
reasonable amount of time. Since some of the requirements in this policy will need
specialized expertise, there will be even less available workers to complete the
work. Remodels are very disruptive in a home. I have experienced that, and if one has to
wait months for a contractor to have time and/or the expertise to work on your project, it's
a severe hardship to the family. Additionally, a long delay can cause project costs to rise
significantly.
Yet another consequence of this policy is that when an investor has to pay more for a
remodel/renovation, who do you think will pay for that? Property owners will pass these
additional expenses onto their tenants, causing the rent in our city to become even more
unaffordable for our work force individuals and families. That goes against what this
council's stated goal has been--affordable housing for all.
This proposed policy has numerous unanswered questions and missing information that
could create confusion to unsuspecting residents applying for a permit to remodel or
renovate. Residents could suddenly face substantial increased costs that they didn't
expect or plan for, causing them to scrap their much needed and desired project.
Consequently, I hope that in order to allow all income levels to improve their homes and
living conditions without prejudice, council should make this policy voluntary, possibly with
the addition of incentives which would be helpful to promote more participation. I believe
there are those who might volunarily choose to include one or two of the more affordable
policy requirements, since they would have potential to save on energy expenses in the
future. There may be some who can't afford any of them, and those residents with limited
2
funding should be provided a choice about what they can and are willing to do toward this
effort.
Thank you for your attention.
Carolyn Smith
San Luis Obispo City resident
3