Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council adopts amendment to cooling ordinance but rejects one‑month deferral after mayor flags cost concerns
Summary
Council adopted an amendment to the proposed tenant cooling ordinance that sets a $500 base deductible and indexes increases to CPI; a subsequent motion to defer the ordinance one month to respond to a mayoral letter failed 5–2, and the ordinance remained on the current timeline.
The council considered Ordinance C‑36877 (the cooling ordinance) and a Wilkerson amendment that changes how a tenant may deduct the cost of a portable air conditioning unit when a rental lacks adequate cooling.
Staff explained the amendment: it “basically adjusts the calculation for the deductible for adding your own portable AC unit,” Wright said, and “it starts with a flat rate of 500 and then increases it by CPI.” The language also clarified documentation required to support a tenant’s deduction and resolved earlier technical inconsistencies in the draft.
Council members debated whether to defer the ordinance after receiving a mayoral letter expressing concerns about code‑enforcement costs and the city’s administrative capacity. Council member Pat Hart moved to defer consideration for one month to align the ordinance with a related Avista support ordinance and give staff time to analyze fiscal impacts; Hart cited the mayor’s letter as the motivation to seek more time.
Several members opposed deferral. Council member Dixon said the ordinance had gone through months of stakeholder engagement and urged prompt action because of public‑health risks: “as we are nearing the end of summer, I feel like we really need to make sure this goes into effect as soon as possible because we still have hot days ahead,” she said. The motion to defer until Sept. 2 failed 5–2. Afterward the council voted to keep the ordinance on the presented timeline and the agenda was modified to reflect that decision.
Council members also requested additional fiscal detail and noted code‑enforcement staffing is currently limited; staff were asked to provide a clearer fiscal note during upcoming budget discussions.
