02/09/1981 Meeting (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e the ordinance; and 3) landlords and renters disagreed over the success of voluntary implementation. Rental housing has posed the most difficult conser- vation dilemma to the Energy Board with the problem compounded by tight cash flow of landlords, high tenant turnover, and landlord/tenant conflicts. During the hearing, staff mentioned the renters stated that landlords would not volun- tarily weatherize. Landlords countered that they would weatherize if financing were available. e As a result of the public hearing, the ordinance now contains a requirement for automatic council review one year before implementation to review the success of voluntary implementation and the availability of financing. Council has played a key role in developing the current financing program. The ECPB held a public hearing last spring and used Mr. Ray Wiley's concept of an energy bank. Those people who had already weatherized would share in the energy bank. Council presented testimony to the EWEB Hearings Officer, which improved the program by making it: 1) retroactive to May 22nd; 2) 0 percent interest; and 3) cost- effective compared to new generation. The council approved unanimously reso- lution No. 3371 which went on record to support the RCS Financing Program and has gone on record in the past to improve the financing program. With the passage of the Northwest Power Bill, staff continues to work to develop an improved conservation program to be extended to large apartment complexes and small businesses. EWEB advised that the RCS Program had been adopted by the board and as the board changes it will go before the full board. Another item the council would review in 1984 would be the cost and supply of energy. At that time it would be required to consider the creation of a specific appeals process, during which individuals could be granted exemptions when the measures were not cost-effective or created unsafe conditions (including but not limited to moisture buildup, fire hazards, or indoor air pollution) or financial hardship, or if it could be proven that performance of a building would be equal to or better than if it was weatherized. The specific appeal process was not included in the ordinance at this time because it would have to be changed over the next four years. The City would be responsible for developing a specific appeals process to be considered one year before the ordinance would go into effect. Since the public hearing, several things have occurred. President Reagan removed price controls from petroleum products so the price would undoubtedly rise and encourage even more conservation. Some banks have reinstated the 6-1/2 percent loan program. And on January 21, 1981, the Federal government mandated utilities, such as EWEB, to develop an audit program for large apartment build- ings and small businesses. EWEB is planning to hire a person to develop this program in the spring. Several councilors have visited a variety of individual groups such as the Rental Owners Association, who raised several good points regarding the appeals process and financing. Concerns were addressed by requir- ing that council re-examine the ordinance one year before it would go into effect. A letter from the Rental Owners Association and an alternative ordinance from Nora Johnson had been received and distributed. The alternative ordinance: 1) required that financing in the form of outright grants be available before the e MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 9, 1981 Page 2