Speaker 1: Because motion carries.
Speaker 0: No, I'm going to move to item 20, please.
Speaker 1: Item 20 Communication from Councilmember Appears Recommendation to require city manager and city attorney to prepare a report on the state of residential page program resolution consenting to the inclusions of properties within GSF fee, community facility districts and residential properties within the e.g. as f a pays program to finance renewable energy generations and report back in 45 days
Speaker 0: . Thank you. Councilwoman Jeanine first.
Speaker 11: Thank you. I need to recuse myself. Thank you.
Speaker 4: Great. Thank you. So this item is kind of a follow up item from a vote that was done before I was on council in April 2016. The goal of that item was to make sure that we had peace programs accessible to residents and businesses in the city of Long Beach. Why? Green was one of the companies that worked directly with the city at that time, and they were allowed to do commercial and multifamily projects, but not residential. And it's been my understanding that that was kind of phase one and that there would be a phase two. There's been some changes to the legislation. And so we wanted to make sure before we brought everything back that we worked with city staff to really come forward with a report. And so I'd like to ask for my colleagues to support this item with the understanding that staff would come back. And we had said 45 days, and that was whenever we were talking about it coming back our agenda using this early January. I just wanted to hear from staff your thoughts on the item and then when is the soonest that you believe you could come back?
Speaker 7: Thank you, Councilmember. Yeah. We have a long history in the city with PACE programs. We're actually one of the first ones to adopt the business peace programs when it first started. And we've had a couple of successful projects here in Long Beach. From the get go, we you know, the staff have had some concern about the residential aspects just because some of the underwriting standards weren't very strong and people could get into into some borrowing that they weren't quite aware of what they were doing. So we have not been a city that has really gone the residential path. You're correct that it has changed recently. There's been a lot more consumer protections that have been put on by the state. We're in the process of analyzing those right now, but they do look to be, you know, pretty significant. And so we believe we can come back with a report sooner than 45 days. We're already working on that. At the top of my head, I'd estimate it, but probably about 2 to 3 weeks. We'll have something that we can bring back, at which point we would make a recommendation.
Speaker 4: Great. Thank you for that. So I'm looking at the calendar and hoping to have something back on February 12th or February 19th. And I do want to just elaborate. I've also had many, many conversations with Y Green and other companies which might speak tonight. I know that why Green itself, they make sure that they have a full process, that audio recorded interview that people can back out of the program if they want to, they screen all their contractors. And so I'd like to, in your report, kind of go over, make sure that it includes the contractor piece, because I know sometimes they might go with a contractor that might not have high standards, but just understanding what the requirements are at the state level for that. But I encourage my colleagues to vote for this report back. I think it's a step in the right direction for our residents to be able to have access to greening their homes in a responsible, effective way. Thank you.
Speaker 7: And Councilmember, if I can add, when we come back on our report, we'll be looking at a number of different companies. You're right. We have heard from wide ranging. You heard from others who have been interested in this for a while. So we'll address that in our recommendation.
Speaker 4: And can I ask, is there something keeping the city from working with from allowing multiple companies to provide pay financing?
Speaker 7: There's not. And we'd actually recommend that if you're going to go this route that you do several so that there's some competition and our residents could benefit.
Speaker 4: I just wanted to make sure that was clear for everybody. Moving on tonight. Appreciate that. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Yes, Councilwoman Gonzalez.
Speaker 2: I want to thank Councilmember Pearce for bringing this forward. I, too, had a lot of questions relative to this program, and I want to make sure that we're on the same page and that we get a report back that's amenable to us all. So thank you for doing the work.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Orson.
Speaker 12: Thank you. And thank you, Councilmember Pearce, for also bringing this forward. And I think the concerns that I have were mostly addressed. I do have one concern about the accountability of these programs and understanding as a city what the the the complaints or or may be regarding that is there and I guess for staff, is there a mechanism or for for for that to be more more transparent and for us to review that, you know, moving forward?
Speaker 7: So we can provide some some of the stories that we've heard about. There have been, you know, a number of lawsuits and some stories in the past that have been, I think, chronicled very well by the L.A. Times, particularly about low income households that thought they were getting one thing and ended up getting something else. That, frankly, has been a big part of our of our hesitancy. But we'll try to cover as much as we can with the state protections that have gone in place. So there are a lot of those problems we believe have been addressed through state legislation. So we'd like a chance to kind of tell you what our concerns are, why we haven't done this in the first place for a while. And and then also what we believe some of those resolutions have been on the state level. The city won't have a lot of that information even after we opt in. Our role is really just to, as a governing body, say, we want this or we don't want this. And then there really is very little government, you know, city interaction. So we don't we don't staff the program. We don't get reports. It really is just you're lending your name to the implementation of the program.
Speaker 12: Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Why do we do people coming in? This is only people coming. Thank you.
Speaker 9: Good evening.
Speaker 7: Honorable City Council members. My name is Jeremy Hartman and I'm with Renew Financial where the administrator of the California First Pays program. And I want to thank Councilmember Pierce and all of you for. For looking more into pace. It's a it's a very successful program. We operate in about 80% of the state and a significant portion of L.A. County. And we've actually been offering our commercial program in Long Beach since 2015. When you first joined commercial programs, we really think that multi provider model is is the best solution because it provides most options for property owners.
Speaker 9: It provides them the opportunity to choose between different pace programs.
Speaker 7: And like Mr. Modica was saying, there's been a lot of improvements in consumer.
Speaker 9: Protections and regulation at the state level and.
Speaker 7: We look forward to coming back and presenting our program in more detail and talking to you more about all the steps that the industry has taken to to really make this as good and experience as possible for homeowners that want to improve their properties and and make them more energy efficient and and conserve water. So thank you very much for your time.
Speaker 0: Thank you, sir. Next speaker.
Speaker 7: Good evening, Vice Mayor and members of the Council. My name is Jeff Simonetti and I'm with the Capital Core Group. I'm speaking on behalf of both Renu Financial with the CCD and Energy Efficient Equity, which is part of the CMF. We appreciate the recommendation to bring multi providers forward. For when you consider this, it sounds like in early February and we really feel that a multi provider platform really gives the consumers more choice to fit their needs. And once we bring this back, you know, I think that the PACE program has really taken some steps over the last couple of years with the with the new legislature legislation at the state level to put in consumer protections, to talk about, you know, confirmation of terms, calls and making sure that people, when they get into their assessment, really understand what what the program is all about and and how they will be assessed. I think the program has really, as a result, become a much better program, much more transparent program. And we're happy to provide you with more information on that. So thank you for your time this evening.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much. See, there's more. There's no any more public comment. And that would you please cast your vote at.
Speaker 3: There. I'm queued up.
Speaker 0: Excuse me. I didn't see that going.
Speaker 2: I do have a question. Perhaps to the to the maker of this motion. Is it is it possible for us to include, when this report comes back, some language in there that protects the public in terms of advertising, marketing, their inclusion in these programs?
Speaker 6: I.
Speaker 4: Elaborate a little bit more for sure.
Speaker 2: There's there's been some misuse of these programs in the past.
Speaker 3: Where the vulnerable.
Speaker 2: Communities have been.
Speaker 4: Targeted. Right. And I believe that the report that will come back from staff will highlight the state changes to to rectify that. And so that's what they'll come back with. And if at that time we want to make some recommendations to go forward with also including, then that would be the time to make that addition.
Speaker 7: That's correct. Some of the state laws had to do with underwriting standards and others had to do with some of the unscrupulous, you know, calling and selling a product that wasn't quite the product that was to be sold. So that has been, as we understand it, addressed by state legislation. We're just trying to kind of verify and really understand that as a city staff. Well, we put out that report.
Speaker 4: And the other thing that it's my understanding that's been included is also the ability to should you get into that into a situation, you can completely back out of the program as well. And so I expect that that will be in your report.
Speaker 7: Yeah, the state has set up some ability for people there to exit, as I understand it, or some type of compensation that the state has set up for people who are really in distress, financial distress. So I will be trying to understand that more and provide you a report.
Speaker 2: And of course, in looking at the agenda item specifically, I would just ask that it be included in the resolution as well.
Speaker 4: Okay. Well, we're not voting on a resolution tonight.
Speaker 2: No, no. But when it comes, I think that was I don't know if the item was amended, but it says requests city manager and city attorney to review that for potential adoption.
Speaker 4: Thank you for that, Susie Councilmember Price. Yes, I'm totally fine with that. I just wanted to make sure we knew what we were voting on.
Speaker 7: And we would suggest that you come back with the report first and then we can take that that next step because we'll have to produce a number of different resolutions for, you know, whatever it you recommend moving forward for several different firms.
Speaker 4: Great. Thank you.
Speaker 0: You want to continue big on that?
Speaker 2: No, I'm good. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Fine, thank you. Okay. Could you please cast your vote?
Speaker 1: Motion carries.
Recommendation to request City Manager and City Attorney to prepare a report on the state of residential Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) programs in California, including impacts of recent state legislation and existing programs in Long Beach, to be brought back within 45 days;

Request City Manager and City Attorney to review and bring back for potential adoption within 45 days a resolution consenting to the Inclusion of Properties within the City's Incorporated Area in Golden State Finance Authority (GSFA) Community Facilities District No. 2014-1 (Clean Energy) to Finance Renewable Energy Generation, Energy Efficiency, Water Conservation and Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure and Other Authorized Improvements; and

Request City Manager and City Attorney to review and bring back for potential adoption within 45 days a resolution consenting to inclusion of Residential Properties within the City's Incorporated Area in the GSFA PACE Program to Finance Renewable Energy Generation, Energy and Water Efficiency Improvements, Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure, and Oth