Agenda Packet 12-12-18 Work Session

Home Browse Search

6 Second Meeting Working group members finished telling the “story” of housing affordability, identified their interests in addressing the challenge, and brainstormed a master list of options. These options are all ideas of things the City could do to increase the availability, affordability, and diversity of housing in Eugene. Using this same raw list, the working group used colored dots (stickers) to identify which ideas they were most interested in learning more about. Between the second and third meetings, the facilitator grouped this large list of options into three broad categories or “strategies” plus a fourth category of ideas that didn’t fit nicely into the first three. These strategies included: 1. Removing land code barriers to housing. 2. Reducing the time and cost burden for development of housing units. 3. Increasing the inventory of and access to Affordable units. 4. Other- additional options that don’t fit one of the other strategies. After sorting the options into these categories, the facilitator, city staff, and Strategic Economics drafted information about each option to help build shared understanding and address the working group’s identified areas of curiosity. Additional sub-options were added for options that could be enacted in multiple ways. For example, option #12 was to adjust Systems Development Charges (SDCs). SDCs could be adjusted in a multitude of ways so sub-options (12-A, 12-B, 12-C) were added to help provide more variety and choice. The detailed options can be found in Appendix D: Options – Deliberative Framing. Third Meeting Working group members worked in facilitated small-groups to consider the options one strategy at a time. During these small groups, they were prompted to identify benefits and drawbacks of each of the options, consider who it would benefit and who might feel disadvantaged, etc. During the small groups, individuals could suggest new options, and these were added for the larger group’s consideration. Strategic Economics presented additional data to support the group’s understanding of the problem. At the conclusion of this third meeting, participants indicated their initial preferences (support, uncertainty, or opposition) to options in the first three strategies with a straw poll (collected via paper ballot). Based on areas of high uncertainty (many yellow votes) the facilitator, City staff, and Strategic Economics again drafted information to help address questions and create shared understanding on the options. This document of additional information was shared with the working group members in advance of their fourth meeting and be found in Appendix E: Options – Additional Information. Fourth Meeting Participants again deliberated in small groups over the final “other” category of options. They indicated their initial preferences for this final group of options with a straw poll. From the combined straw poll results, (those from strategies 1-3 from the November 14 meeting and those from the final category from November 28) options were ranked with those enjoying the most support/agreement at the top. From here, beginning with the areas with most agreement, participants cast their final votes with added commentary for why they supported or opposed an idea. Final votes were cast by raising colored cards (green, yellow, and red) and tallied publicly. Comments were collected orally and on paper. Time did not allow a final vote on all options. Where necessary, the level of agreement was carried over from straw poll results. See the results section for a more comprehensive explanation. December 12, 2018, Work Session - Item 2