Item 3D: Ratification of Intergovernmental Relations Committee Minutes

Home Browse Search

be deleted under 2, Streamlining, and replaced with a new recommendation that read “Support improve- ments to State Building Codes that streamline without jeopardizing health, safety, or integrity of infrastruc- ture.” There was no objection. Referring to the section entitled Use of Surcharge Dollars for Training and Education, Ms. Bettman questioned the inclusion of Recommendation 2, which called for monitoring to ensure no disproportionate State funding was allocated to the Portland-Metro area, as it appeared to have no relationship to Eugene. She suggested that the recommendation be eliminated. There was no objection. Referring to the section entitled Minimum Review Time Lines, Ms. Bettman proposed that the committee add a recommendation that read “Support time lines that protect plan quality and do not unnecessarily expand work volume or increase administrative costs while ensuring timeliness.” There was no objection. Ms. Bettman noted the lack of a staff recommendation under the section entitled Building Codes Division Oversight and suggested the following recommendation be added: “Do not support legislation that would restrict local programs or restrict local authority.” There was no objection. Ms. Bettman referred to the section entitled Removal of Regulatory Barriers to Low-Income Housing on page 31 of the draft and asked why the City would propose to broaden program eligibility requirements for housing assistance for families making between 40 and 80 percent of the median income when not all the needs of the very low income population could be served. Ms. Walston suggested that the policy would put the City in a position to meet those needs in case more resources became available. Ms. Taylor favored the retention of the statement in question. Ms. Bettman feared that if the City supported legislation that supported assistance for higher income brackets, it would come at the expense of lower income brackets Mr. Pryor suggested that the policy be revised to indicate that if eligibility was to be broadened, it would not come at the expense of those in lower income brackets. Ms. Taylor pointed out that those just above the poverty level frequently had many needs and no one was helping them with anything, where those below a certain level for eligible for all kinds of assistance. Ms. Bettman suggested that the statement be revised to read “The City also supports broadening the eligibility requirements for housing assistance, without compromising the existing low-income assistance funding.” Ms. Bettman recommended that the committee delete the second bullet on page 32 as it was a statement of fact rather than a statement of support and was already included in a box. There was concurrence. Ms. Bettman asked that the new second bullet on page 32 be modified by deleting the phrase “in the core area” as the City wanted to promote density in all parts of the community. There was no objection. Ms. Bettman referred to Recommendation 2 under the section entitled Land Use Application Review Process and suggested that there were two different concepts incorporated in the recommendation. She proposed to separate the concepts by placing a period after the phrase “rather than be reprinted in the code” and by adding a new Recommendation 3 that read “Support local discretion in standards for needed housing.” The committee agreed, and further accepted a recommendation from Ms. Bettman to delete existing Recommendation 3 in this section as she was did not currently perceive a threat to home rule in this area. Ms. Bettman suggested the committee add a recommendation under the section entitled 20-Year Land Supply that read “Support legislation that would require an assessment of rural residential development’s impact on housing capacity within the urban growth boundary.” There was no objection. MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations October 26, 2006 Page 2