Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Energy Efficiency topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Kane County board sends proposed $100,000 home energy-audit contract back to committee after debate
Summary
After lengthy debate over scope, cost and procurement, the Kane County Board voted Feb. 10 to return a proposed $100,000, two-year home energy audit contract to committee for reconsideration. Critics said the plan overpays for limited audits; staff said $35,000 would fund resident rebates and the consultant’s fee is $25,000 a year.
The Kane County Board voted Feb. 10 to send a proposed home energy-audit contract back to committee after members questioned whether the county’s approach would deliver value to residents.
David Young, who raised the item during the meeting’s consent-agenda discussion, said the contract appeared to pay a single, private contractor $100,000 over two years to inspect 25 homes and questioned whether that scale justified the cost. “We are essentially going to double his income,” Young said, adding that many residents would not be able to afford recommended upgrades needed to realize rebates.
Jody Wallnick, director of environmental and water resources, said the county followed purchasing rules and ran an RFP that produced five applicants and a short list. Wallnick told the board the total contract amount is $100,000 over two years — $50,000 per year — and that not all of that is consultant pay. “Of that $100,000, $35,000 is going directly to the residents as rebates,” she said, and the county will purchase and own the software used for audits. Wallnick also said the consultant’s direct administration fee is budgeted at roughly $25,000 per year.
Several board members pressed for alternatives. Some referenced free or low-cost audit programs offered by utilities such as ComEd and NICOR and recommended the county use its funds to help more residents access existing utility services or to scale a county-run program rather than contract out a high-cost pilot for 25 homes. One member suggested the county could buy training and equipment so staff could perform audits in-house after an initial pilot.
After debate, a motion to send the item back to committee for further work and reconsideration carried on a roll-call vote. The chair and staff said the program is funded from the county’s electrical aggregation fund, not the general fund, and that staff will return with additional detail on scope, expected outcomes, and how the rebate escrow will operate.
What’s next: The matter will return to committee for follow-up analysis and a revised recommendation to the full board. The board did not adopt the contract as written on Feb. 10.
