New Search
<br /> V. :Planning and Community Services <br /> A. BUILDING CODES <br /> 1. COST ACCOUNTABILITY <br /> When legislative action results in code changes that require local administration, there <br /> should be State accountability for the additional financial resources that will be required. <br /> Funding should be identified before enactment to compensate for such items as personnel <br /> training, information and training for the public, and added review. <br /> 2. STREAMLINING <br /> Building codes have become a complex burden for jurisdictions administering the codes <br /> and for those in the building industry. Certain actions would simplify the codes for all <br /> parties, making their administration more cost-effective and maintaining the integrity of <br /> their intent to promote public health, welfare and safety. Those simplification actions <br /> include: <br /> a. Eliminate or severely curtail the number of amendments that the State of Oregon <br /> adds. to the model codes. <br /> b. Work with the Oregon Building Officials Association (OBOA) and the <br /> International Code Council Ina (ICC) on code changes rather than <br /> interpretations. ICC, a new organization of model code writing agencies, will be <br /> the writer of Oregon's model codes. Focusing on code interpretations rather than <br /> code changes makes proactive building codes administration more difficult. <br /> 3. STATEWIDE UNIFORMITY <br /> Ensuring uniform application of Oregon building codes should be recognized as a priority <br /> and should be funded to levels allowing effective monitoring and enforcement. Building <br /> codes currently are administered and enforced in an inconsistent manner throughout the <br /> . state. This has caused an atmosphere of uncertainty and unpredictability and has created <br /> competition between jurisdictions with regard to development activity. <br /> u <br /> City of Eugene Legislative Policies, 2005 Session 24 , <br /> ,I <br /> <br />