Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Home Energy Score topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council debates timing of home energy score disclosure as region moves forward
Summary
Councilors questioned whether Olympia should vote on a home energy score disclosure policy in March or wait for partner jurisdictions; staff said assessments would typically cost $150–$350 paid by sellers and that Thurston County and Tumwater are moving the item through their processes in February.
City climate staff told the Olympia City Council on Feb. 10 that a proposed home energy score policy would require disclosure of a standardized energy assessment at the time of sale and that staff and regional partners have worked toward a model, regionally consistent ordinance.
Pamela Braff said the assessment would be paid by the seller and estimated typical costs in other communities at roughly $150 to $350. She also said the city would budget subsidized assessments for low‑income sellers so qualifying households could receive a covered assessment.
"It would be paid for by the seller," Braff said, adding that staff recommend subsidized assessments for low‑income sellers.
Braff updated the council on partner jurisdictions' timelines: Thurston County scheduled a public hearing for Feb. 17 and may take action; the City of Tumwater scheduled a council work session for Feb. 24; and Lacey had proposed adding the item to its work plan. Olympia staff said they currently have the policy on the March council agenda for consideration and asked whether the council prefers to proceed in March or to wait longer for partners.
Council member Green urged caution about moving ahead without partners, saying residents perceive Olympia as prone to "layering on" regulations that neighboring jurisdictions do not have. Council member Merrick asked whether the council could adopt the policy with a contingency that other partners also join; City Manager Bernie and staff said contingent language is possible and that staff can present options.
Council members also asked who would pay the cost of assessments and whether requiring a listing‑time disclosure (rather than at the time of sale) would be preferable to avoid delaying transactions; Braff said real‑estate professionals generally prefer assessments at the time of listing so the information is available to buyers early in the process.
No formal vote was taken at the study session. Staff will place the item on the March agenda for full council consideration and will provide options for timing, contingencies, subsidies for low‑income sellers and any necessary legal review.
Next steps: Thurston County hearing Feb. 17; Tumwater work session Feb. 24; Olympia staff to return to council in March with options and recommended ordinance language for consideration.
