Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Pap6 asked if the fines coming in were restricted to program use. Ms. Miller said they were not. <br /> <br /> Mr. Pap6 moved, seconded by Ms. Bettman, to establish a fund to dedicate the <br /> fines from the program to the program. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly raised a point of order that the motion was not a properly phrased amendment to the ordinance <br />and should be a stand alone motion. <br /> <br />Mr. Klein said that he would need to draft language to amend the code and would have to consult with <br />Finance staffto determine how to establish a dedicated fund. <br /> <br /> Mr. Pap6 withdrew his motion. <br /> <br /> Mr. Pap6 moved, seconded by Ms. Solomon, to amend Section 8.430(3) as set <br /> forth in Section 1 of the ordinance, by adding a new subparagraph (e) thereto, to <br /> provide as follows: <br /> <br /> "(e) For purposes of determining whether a complaint is valid, the city manager <br /> shall consider whether the violation of the standard in Section 8.425 was the re- <br /> sult of damage caused by the tenant." <br /> <br />Mr. Pap6 asked how the City Manager would interpret that provision and whether the claim would be <br />withdrawn if it was determined the tenant was responsible. City Manager Taylor replied that the <br />provision required him to consider whether the violation was the result of tenant damage. Ms. Miller <br />added that she had discussed the issue with the cities of Corvallis and Portland because the concern was <br />raised during the public hearing. She said Corvallis indicated it had not experienced tenant-caused <br />damage as a problem for habitability standards, which were the subject of the proposed ordinance. She <br />said Portland indicated that regardless of how the damages were caused, it was still ultimately the owner's <br />responsibility to correct those problems and then resolve the issue with the tenant. <br /> <br />Mr. Pap6 asked if the ordinance would prevent the landlord from evicting a tenant because of damage like <br />a broken window and requiring the tenant to repair the damage. City Manager Taylor said the issue for <br />him would be the habitability deficit caused by tenant behavior and what was done to remedy it. He said <br />that there were actions a landlord could take against a tenant causing the damage and it could affect the <br />time limits or other aspects of the ordinance, but the basic habitability deficit was considered the primary <br />basis for adjudicating the claim. <br /> <br />Mr. Pap6 posed the scenario in which a tenant causes his or her own problem, does not fix it, the program <br />forces the landlord to do the required repairs, and then the tenant leaves without paying back the landlord. <br />City Manager Taylor said that would be an issue for the landlord and legal counsel; the underlying issue <br />of the housing standard code was the habitability of the rental property. <br /> <br />Mr. Pap6 reiterated that tenants should not benefit from their own ill-caused actions and without such a <br />provision, they could. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly said that when the issue of tenant-caused problems was first raised he thought it had some <br />merit, but he was not comfortable with the phrasing of the amendment and could not now see how there <br />was a benefit to the tenant as a landlord would only be restoring the unit to its prior condition, not <br />improving it. He said that some tenant damage could constitute a criminal act and there was likely civil <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 22, 2004 Page 10 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />