After significant debate Monday night, the City Council voted to hold off on its final consideration of the proposed Healthy Buildings Ordinance at least until their next meeting on Feb. 10. The vote was 5-3 opposed to the delay, but two-thirds of the eight council members voting would have been required to overturn the delay.
The ordinance would require Evanston buildings above 20,000 square feet to be energy-efficient, powered entirely by renewables and achieve zero onsite emissions by 2050.
Earlier in the day, a coalition of Evanston businesses, property owners and schools circulated a joint statement to the city requesting a slowdown on the ordinance voting. The 27 signatories included Evanston’s two public school district superintendents, Northwestern University, the Evanston Chamber of Commerce and members of the real estate industry.
Points in this letter, and two submitted by Northwestern University in recent weeks, framed much of the discussion by City Council and public commenters on Monday night. The three letters cite the ordinance’s goals as overly stringent and not taking into account collaboration between the city and stakeholders.
“I’ve never seen anything like what I’ve seen in the last week or so in this community, large, powerful organization, engaging in an aggressive personal campaign, attacking individual numbers of city staff with half truths and misinformation,” said Mayor Daniel Biss. “Not being willing to speak to me directly, perhaps because they’re unable to defend their assertions. It’s profoundly troubling.”
‘Departure’ from CARP
The concerns in the group letter are many: it argues that the ordinance is “more stringent” than other similar city government mandates. No specific similar ordinances are cited in this group letter.
The letter states that going for absolute zero emissions (no offsets can be included in emissions calculations) instead of net zero emissions (which can include offsets) in this ordinance removes needed flexibility and is a “departure” from the City’s Climate Action and Resilience Plan (CARP) target.
When it comes to costs, the ordinance does include an accountability board with the purpose of equitable and fair rules and alternative compliance options for those who can’t afford to make the switch. But the signing bodies dispute the viability of needed building changes, pointing at cost and invasiveness.
“Costs associated with retrofitting and electrifying existing buildings — especially those larger than 20,000 square feet — could be prohibitive, forcing businesses, schools, hospitals, and nonprofits to shoulder disproportionate financial burdens,” it states.
This letter also expresses concerns for this cost being passed on to renters and small business owners.
The letter asked the City Council to delay the vote, form a working committee for more collaboration with the bodies being regulated, and incorporate more flexible compliance options.
Definition and costs
“We were surprised about a joint letter was received this afternoon,” said City Manager Luke Stowe once council discussion was underway. “Staff has offered 43 open public engagement opportunities, met one-on-one with many additional entities, and offered to meet with anyone interested in learning more or getting feedback on the ordinance.”
Council member Devon Reid (8th Ward) had significant concerns about points raised in the letter, especially the requirement for zero onsite emissions, potential costs passed to renters and undefined aspects of the ordinance.
He spent some time questioning city staff on these items, especially the difference between zero onsite emissions, net zero emissions, and carbon neutral, and why zero onsite emissions were chosen.
“We have held items for less than the amount of information that’s missing here,” Reid said. “We don’t have the cost to the city, let alone the cost to the community. We don’t even have a rough number.”
Council Member Jonathan Nieuwsma (4th Ward) told the council that “flexibility and collaboration” are “built into the structure of this plan.” The ordinance would establish a rulemaking period during which this would be further fleshed out, he said.
Reid also took issue with the fact that most buildings above 20,000 square feet are not in Evanston’s low income neighborhoods, and this ordinance would not mitigate any public health risks associated with emissions for vulnerable populations.
City staff pointed out that Evanston’s Green Homes pilot initiative serves this population.
Reid also questioned the rush on this process, as did Council Member Bobby Burns (5th Ward). Both asked for clarification from city staff on the timeline of the grant, which has not yet been issued. Once the grant is issued, it seems the city will have a year to create the building electrification standards required according to city staff.
Council member Krissie Harris (2nd Ward) also cited cost concerns.
“’I’ve received, now this past week, a lot of calls, and a lot of it had to do with money,” Harris said. “Real estate, saying, ‘I’m passing this cost on to my residents, period.’”
Communications to stakeholders
Council member Burns also took some issue with the level of communication to stakeholders.
“I think council has signaled that we don’t want carbon offsets to a certain extent,” Burns said. “We have not communicated that to all the building owners and all the institutions that are concerned about that.”
Burns ultimately voiced support for zero onsite emissions, but urged the council to admit they came up short on communication.
City Sustainability and Resilience Coordinator Cara Pratt showed surprise that Northwestern was voicing concerns, given their regular meetings with the school and their involvement in the city’s grant application process.
“My team has collaborated with Trienens and McCormick — those are two academic entities within Northwestern — to work on this building performance standards program for the last several months,” Pratt said.
When it comes to the public school districts, both Council Members Tom Suffredin (6th Ward) and Eleanor Revelle (7th Ward) supported further communication.
Mayor Biss also mentioned he spoke directly to District 202 Superintendent Marcus Campbell, a signatory on the joint letter.
“It was clear to me from that discussion that there’s more education that needs to happen,” Biss said. “There was a lot of enthusiasm for what we’re trying to achieve here.”
According to City Manager Stowe, there also may have been some internal confusion within the school districts regarding their inclusion on the joint letter sent to council.
Procedural pitfalls
As debate wore on, a back-and-forth discussion on delaying the adoption vote played out across the dais, leading to a bizarre sequence which ended up ensuring the ordinance can return for a final vote in just two weeks.
It started when Reid and Harris moved to hold the vote over until the council’s next meeting on Feb. 10. This motion only needs two votes to approve, but can be overturned by a two-thirds vote, and Nieuwsma and Wynne immediately made an overturn motion.
During further debate, however, Reid and several other council members seemed to reach agreement on pushing that delay into April — something which prompted Nieuwsma and Wynne to withdraw the counter motion, soon followed by Reid and Harris moving to overturn their previous holdover from just minutes prior.
After several minutes of confusion on the dais, as council members sorted out what exactly their votes would mean, the overturn vote landed at 5-3, with Kelly, Harris, Burns, Suffredin and Reid voting yes. This failed to reach the required two-thirds majority, though Reid briefly tried to argue it should somehow qualify due to Council Member Juan Geracaris (9th Ward) abstaining from the vote.
After the vote, both Burns and Reid spoke to the “sky is falling,” nature of some council discussion, as Burns said, which he believes creates unnecessary controversy and confusion.
Reid suggested the council take a town hall approach to the ordinance, similar to that adopted regarding Northwestern University’s Ryan Field discussion.
NU: ‘We’re here to work with you’
Dozens of public commenters spoke in favor of the ordinance before council kicked off their conversation.
Those opposed included real estate agents, property owners and Northwestern University’s Senior Executive Director of Neighborhood and Community Relations Dave Davis.
“We’re just opposed to a poorly drafted ordinance that needs more work, and we’re here to work with you,” Davis said. “There’s so many parts of it that still remains undefined.”
Davis also stated the draft process had been rushed, and pointed out that Council Member Nieuwsma had just on Monday submitted amendments to the draft ordinance.
This appearance by Davis at public comment came after Northwestern sent two official communications to the city over the past several weeks, in conjunction with being a signatory on the joint letter mentioned above.
As owner’s of roughly 20% of buildings above 20,000 square feet, the school felt “targeted” by the ordinance.
“The healthy buildings ordinance applies to the 500 largest buildings in the city of Evanston, because the research that we have done shows that 53% of our emissions come from our large buildings,” Mayor Biss said in a press conference preceding the council meeting.
“That is the science, and that is a fact, and that’s not targeting anyone, by the way. No one entity owns the majority or even a quarter of those buildings, so that is a laughable allegation.”
A number of individuals from the press conference, including Evanston environmental activists, also spoke in favor of the ordinance during the public comment periods.
“Cara’s team intentionally chose a structure that prioritizes flexibility and puts decision- making power in the hands of building owners who know their buildings best,” said Second Ward resident Jessica Miller, senior director for policy strategy and engagement at the Institute for Market Transformation and a member of the building electrification working group of the Environment Board. “It is not prescriptive. A policy without good compliance is a failed policy.”
Reporter Alex Harrison contributed to this report.
After spirited debate, City Council holds Healthy Building Ordinance until next meeting is from Evanston RoundTable, Evanston's most trusted source for unbiased, in-depth journalism.