Laserfiche WebLink
passed unanimously, 3:0. <br /> <br />3. Review of Pending Legislation <br /> <br />HB 2961 <br />Ms. Wilson stated that the bill would allow municipalities to impose local requirements for construction <br />of new structures that could be more stringent than state building code. Staff had recommended remaining <br />neutral on the bill. <br />Mr. Poling preferred to oppose the bill because he believed it would significantly undermine the statewide <br />code, which would cause confusion for builders who worked in multiple jurisdictions. He wished there <br />was another way to indicate opposition while not expending any actual energy to block the bill. Ms. <br />Wilson said staff could submit a letter that conveyed that message. <br />Mr. Poling averred that in something like building codes, they needed consistency statewide. <br />and to direct staff to send a letter indicating that building code should remain consistent <br />statewide. <br />Ms. Taylor wanted to support the bill. <br />Ms. Ortiz asked staff to comment about the proposed change from the position that staff recommended the <br />City adopt. Mark Whitmill, Assistant Building Official for the Planning Division, responded that his <br />personal opinion was that the bill should be opposed. The reason he had recommended adoption of a <br />neutral position was that the bill would make it easier for the City of Eugene to adopt local land use <br />amendments. <br />In response to a question from Ms. Wilson, Mr. Whitmill explained that he also believed that the code <br />should be statewide in order to foster consistency. <br />The vote was 2:1; Ms. Taylor voting in opposition. <br />HB 3056 <br />Ms. Wilson explained that the bill would require 50 percent of the increment to be added to the total <br />assessed value of a property within an urban renewal area whenever the increment equaled the total <br />assessed value. Staff had recommended adopting a Priority 2 Oppose position on the bill. <br />Ms. Taylor wanted to support the bill because she felt it would provide more money to the General Fund. <br />Mr. Poling believed that <br />Ms. Piercy arrived. <br />Financial Analysis Manager, Sue Cutsogeorge, pointed out that the tradeoff for having more money in the <br />General Fund would be that there would be less money in the Urban Renewal Agency. <br />MINUTESCouncil Committee on Intergovernmental Relations April 1, 2009 Page 2 <br />