Laserfiche WebLink
Mayor Torrey solicited council comments and questions. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor was pleased with the staff materials. She asked why complaints could not be filed by telephone. <br />Ms. Miller said all nuisance and zoning complaints were currently taken in writing. In Corvallis, the tenant <br />must submit information in writing indicating that the landlord had been notified. Ms. Taylor wanted to <br />consider allowing people to file complaints via telephone. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor referred to the penalty section and suggested that, as Eugene's former ordinance called for, <br />landlords found guilty of a violation be prohibited for a year from raising rents on any unit they owned. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor said a $10 annual fee per unit was not large and she did not see a problem having it added to the <br />rents. She wanted to hold a public hearing on the ordinance. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner supported holding a public hearing on the ordinance. Speaking to Ms. Taylor's concern, he <br />suggested staff prepare a simple, straightforward complaint form for residents to complete. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner noted a discrepancy between the ordinance and council packet materials in regard to single <br />rooms inside a house. He indicated some preference for the ordinance language. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner noted a complaint-driven process was anticipated rather than an inspection-driven program. <br />For that reason, he did not believe two FTEs were needed. Ms. Miller indicated the staff estimate of the <br />needed FTEs was based on the Corvallis model. Mr. Meisner wanted to start with one FTE given that the <br />City planned to phase the program in. He said the fee was predicated on the number of FTE, and he <br />doubted that would ever be reduced once established. City Manager Dennis Taylor indicated he was <br />unwilling to begin the program with inadequate resources. Mr. Meisner was not persuaded of the need. <br /> <br />Mr. Pap~ discussed the HPB recommendation, noting his surprise at the vote, and speculating that it was <br />based on certain members' belief that while substandard housing was a problem, it was low in price and <br />filled a community need by housing those who would not otherwise be able to find housing. There was fear <br />that rents would be raised when those units were improved to meet new standards. Members had also <br />suggested that a $10 per unit fee could be used to build more low-income housing rather than support a <br />housing standards program. <br /> <br />Mr. Pap~ noted that Section 8 housing was inspected regularly and suggested that the council seriously <br />consider the exemptions recommended by the HPB. <br /> <br />Mr. Poling thanked the students from the University of Oregon who worked to bring the issue before the <br />council. He concurred with staff regarding the phased implementation. He asked if the funds used to build <br />the program could be returned to the General Fund at a later time from program revenues. City Manager <br />Taylor indicated it depended on the start-up strategy used to fund the program. <br /> <br />Mr. Poling asked about appeals past the Hearings Official level. City Attorney Glenn Klein indicated that <br />further appeals would go to the Circuit Court. Mr. Poling wanted that to be clear to the public. <br /> <br />Mr. Poling favored a sunset provision, and suggested it was an opportunity to review the potential of scaling <br />back the program and the program staff that was needed, and to work through "bugs" in the ordinance. <br /> <br />Mr. Poling supported Mr. Meisner's call for a simple complaint form but believed sufficient written <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council August 11, 2004 Page 2 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />