Item 3A - Minutes Approval - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

menced to enforce those provisions prior to December 31, 2008 may continue to be pursued, and the provisions related to such enforcement actions shall remain in effect with respect to those actions. In addition, any fees owed to the City under the provisions related to those fees and their collection shall remain in effect with respect to those fees." Mr. Poling emphasized the need to review the program at a specific time to determine if it was functioning correctly or requirement changes. Mr. Pap6 moved to amend the sunset date to December 31, 2007. The motion died for lack of a second. Mr. Kelly said that the actions of future councils could be the equivalent of a sunset provision; however, given concerns about the long-term effect of the program in some segments of the community he would support a sunset. He said the length of the sunset provision provided adequate time for program operations to accumulate data upon which to base an evaluation. Ms. Nathanson said she would support the amendment; the council had frequently used mandatory reviews or sunset provisions with new programs and it was a responsible approach. Ms. Bettman said the motion was responsive to comments from the industry and councilors. She asked staff to provide reports and evaluation data in advance of the sunset date, such as September 2008, to allow the council adequate time for review. Ms. Taylor said she preferred a mandatory review to a sunset provision, which suggested that the program would be ended at that point. Ms. Taylor moved to change the words "sunset provision" to "mandatory review." The motion died for lack of a second. The motion to amend the ordinance by adding a new Section 5 passed, 7:1; Ms. Taylor voting in opposition. Mr. Poling moved, seconded by Ms. Bettman, to amend Section 8.430(4) as set forth in Section 1 of the ordinance, by adding a final sentence thereto, to provide as follows: "The City shall notify the owner or owner's agent not less than 24 hours prior to a scheduled inspection of the premises in order to afford the owner or landlord the opportunity to be present during the inspection." Ms. Nathanson commented that it was important to provide notification but the amendment was problematic; if staff waited until 48 hours to contact the owner and was not able to, then the inspection could not be scheduled and the tenant could not obtain a remedy. She said that seven days seemed too long and many people preferred contact by phone or email to a written notice. Ms. Miller said the intent was to give the owner an opportunity to be present for the inspection, but whatever notice was required did not mean that an inspection would not proceed. Mr. Kelly expressed concern with the original notice of seven days and asked if the new wording would be satisfied by leaving a voicemail message for the owner and if the owner was unavailable, the inspection MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 22, 2004 Page 7 Work Session