My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Item 3: Approval of Non-Unanimous IGR Actions
COE
>
City of Eugene
>
Council Agendas 2009
>
CC Agenda - 06/08/09 Meeting
>
Item 3: Approval of Non-Unanimous IGR Actions
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/9/2010 12:43:04 PM
Creation date
6/4/2009 5:23:26 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council
City_Council_Document_Type
Agenda Item Summary
CMO_Meeting_Date
6/8/2009
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
42
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Mark Whitmill PDD-BPS <br />Mark Whitmill 5/12/2009 Pri 2 Yes IV.B Support <br />Comments:I recommend that we support SB 79A, but push for an amendment to add local government <br />representation on the Task Force. <br />Re: Section 1, the Task Force includes owners, lenders, designers, developers, builders and <br />trades, and other stakeholders but is noticeably lacking any representation on the regulatory <br />side. Local governments may have a piece of the administration or regulation of the <br />requirements, as well as many other interests, so municipal representation should be <br />included. <br />I like the concept of a Reach Code and don’t have any problems with the way Section 5 is <br />now written. It’s an optional code, so the Director is only required to consult with the <br />advisory boards, not necessarily get their approval. I think the original concept was that <br />today’s Reach Code would be tomorrow’s code, and that’s not necessarily the case now. In <br />each code cycle the Director and advisory boards will look at the Reach Code and decide <br />which parts should be incorporated into the building code. It would add a bit more <br />complexity to plan review and inspection as we would have to learn and apply another <br />code, but could be done. <br />I think that though it makes the process more cumbersome (gotta love democracy) I think <br />it’s important that the Director obtain the approval of the applicable boards before adopting <br />energy code amendments. I don’t have a problem with Section 9. <br />ContactRespondent Dept Updated Priority Policy Policy No Recommendation <br />PDD-BPS <br />Ethan Nelson 5/14/2009 Pri 2 Yes IV.B Support <br />Comments:Mark and I read these revisions the same way. Support with the strong recommendation <br />that the Task Force include a municipal representative. <br />ContactRespondent Dept Updated Priority Policy Policy No Recommendation <br />Felicity Fahy CS-CMO <br />Comments: <br />SB 0879 <br />Relating Clause: Relating to urban renewal. <br />Title:Requires 50 percent of increment to be added to total assessed value of property within <br />urban renewal area whenever increment equals total assessed value. <br /> 11 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.