Why The Energy Amendment Didn't Pass

---
Last Wednesday, the Oro Valley Town Council held a public hearing on a general plan amendment that would add a new element to the General Plan:  The Energy Element.  The item failed 5-2.   A second motion to include this item in the 2015 General Plan also failed.

The amendment touched on things such as the color of a roof; requiring construction to have solar compatibility in new or remodeled residences.  Suggesting how a home should be oriented vis a vis the sun in order to maximize "energy efficiency".

The concern by some on Council was that these ideas will eventually turn into mandates.  This they believe to be true even if "they" tell us "it ain't so."  There are some who do not like mandates, whether it be the Government telling you to use hazardous light bulbs that use mercury; or a homeowners association dictating the color of you house.

The discussion of this amendment began more than six hours into the council meeting.

Council Member Bill Garner "cut to the chase." Adding an energy element is not required until the Town reaches a population of 50,000. Oro Valley's current population is 41,000.  In addition, he asked why the town is spending its' time on things that we are already doing in the community, since some of the items in the amendment are already being done by residents and businesses in the town.  "We are putting mandates in.... We are (already) as a community being sustainable."

Mayor Hiremath noted that he was troubled with what he saw as mandates in this amendment:  "If all the woulds, were shoulds," He noted  "I'd be more comfortable with it."   He noted that these ideas increase the cost of new homes by $1,000.  "A non mandated policy would be a much easier transition."

Council Member Hornat noted that there is no reason to mandate anything.  He noted that when the market will justify the costs, the ideas will be implemented. "I cant' support this. This just goes way too far... Our energy element, if we ever have one, should be two sentences:  We think its a good idea. Be aware."  Later, he noted that "we have no business of being in this business," referring to the business of regulating individual behavior.

Council Member Zinkin, a supporter of energy conservation, noted: "We are two years away from having the voters approve an updated General  Plan. Let them decide on this."  He stated that he does not view the amendment as a mandate; rather he sees it as a document stating the vision of what Oro Valley would like to see in energy conservation.

Council Member Burns spoke in favor of the amendment, feeling that the amendment is about "energy conservation."  He did not consider the amendment a manage.  It would be a mandate only if it was approved by the voters in an updated general plan. He believe that the amendment, if approved by Council, should only be considered a guide and a vision; that it should not become "law."

Council Member Waters did not speak on the matter. Council Member Snider asked questions to clarify the meaning of portions of the amendment.

The public hearing segment of the program was sparse, with only three speakers enduring the long 6 hour 30 minute wait to speak on this issue.  One, from the Southern Arizona Home Builder's Association ("SAHBA"), noted that the ideas in the amendment suggested the possibility of future mandates.  One, resident Bill Adler, said that the amendment is a "direction document" that could be ignored if the council wished as, he alleges, council has ignored other parts of the general plan.  Resident Shirl Lammona noted the many unintended consequences that government regulations in this area cause.

Clearly, there is room for understanding on both sides of the issue.  Was this amendment a "directional document" stating a vision; or was it a document upon which code would be based?  

"If the town is supportive of this, then they will support it," noted Council Member Garner, speaking of it's possible inclusion in the 2015 General Plan update.

We would like to see new version of the energy element; one that states it as a vision; one that, in no way, suggests that it requires mandatory action and building code inclusion; one that does not appear to be a mandate; one that is created by residents who bring differing views to the document.  We would like to see this version included in the 2015 General Plan Update. Then, let the voters decide.
---