02/09/1981 Meeting (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e :'e - Donna Turring, 115 Oakway, had spoken to a number of neighbors who had been advised during an audit that R-30 insulation was not cost-effective. Eugene's climate was not one of the coldest in the nation. She did not believe that people wanted a hidden tax of one to two thousand dollars in their homes as well as an increased EWEB rate if the bond measure went through. George Adams, 4970 West Hillside Drive, said there was a grave technical error in the proposed ordinance. It was proposed to spend twice as much on floor insulation than attic insulation. The average winter ground temperature in Eugene was 51.8 degrees and the average well-constructed home had a floor temperature of 62 degrees when the thermostat was set at 65 degrees. Potential savings would be low. He also objected to houses becoming substandard if not weatherized to the mandatory standards. An engineering economist consultant should be hired before passing a poorly designed ordinance. Don Bartram, 2380 Garfield, landlord, advised that although his tenants had never asked him to weatherize, all of his units had been weatherized. This was done in order to keep good tenants who could also afford to pay the rent. He believed in letting the market find its place. There being no further testimony, public hearing was closed. Mr. Page addressed some of the issues raised and pointed out that as much public input as possible had been sought over the last nine months. Substantial input had been received from the Rental Owners Association and the Chamber of Commerce. The key issue is whether mandatory measures are necessary. It is believed that most people, including investors, will weatherize when financing becomes avail- able. Those who do not are hurting the rest of the community and some believe that the community has a right to ensure that resources are not wasted. Each of the measures, according to expert testimony, were the most cost-effective com- pared to new generation and those who are raising objections had an opportunity to testify at that time. It was the position of the Energy Conservation Policy Board that there was no incentive for landlords to weatherize and even though figures were encouraging to some, a large number of investor-owned properties still need to be weatherized, with tenants having no recourse other than to move. A more pertinent question asked was whether financing would be available. Council and EWEB staff have worked hard to ensure that it is and will be equi- table to all in the community. There is no evidence to believe that EWEB would not develop a financing program which has been submitted as part of a Federally mandated program. Future items for staff to pursue are: 1) to work with Rental Owners Association to develop appeals process before review date; 2) to work with EWES to incorporate investors' concerns and financing program (RCS or BPA contract); and 3) to work with the Mayor's Senior Citizen Committee to develop educational programs. A need was also seen for the council to continue its commitment to the Energy Policy Board to expand to other sectors such as commer- cial and small businesses. A grant has been received and a program is being developed in the small business sector. MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 9, 1981 Page 10