Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Papd asked if fines from the program would go back into the program. Ms. Miller said that account <br />codes would be established for all of the program's expenses and revenues, including fines, so that they <br />could be tracked even though they were in the General Fund. <br /> <br />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 staff to determine how to establish a dedicated fund. <br /> <br /> Mr. Pap~ withdrew his motion. <br /> <br /> Mr. Pap~ moved, seconded by Ms. Solomon, to amend Section 8.430(3) as set forth <br /> in Section 1 of the ordinance, by adding a new subparagraph (e) thereto, to provide <br /> 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 result <br /> of damage caused by the tenant." <br /> <br />Mr. Pap~ 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withdrawn if it was determined the tenant was responsible.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 provision <br />required him to consider whether the violation was the result of tenant damage. Ms. Miller added that she <br />had discussed the issue with the cities of Corvallis and Portland because the concern was raised during the <br />public hearing. She said Corvallis indicated it had not experienced tenant-caused damage as a problem for <br />habitability standards, which were the subject of the proposed ordinance. She said Portland indicated that <br />regardless of how the damages were caused, it was still ultimately the owner's responsibility to correct those <br />problems and then resolve the issue with the tenant. <br /> <br />Mr. Pap~ asked if the ordinance would prevent the landlord from evicting a tenant because of damage like a <br />broken window and requiring the tenant to repair the damage. City Manager Taylor said the issue for him <br />would be the habitability deficit caused by tenant behavior and what was done to remedy it. He said that <br />there were actions a landlord could take against a tenant causing the damage and it could affect the time <br />limits or other aspects of the ordinance, but the basic habitability deficit was considered the primary basis <br />for adjudicating the claim. <br /> <br />Mr. Pap~ 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 of <br />the housing standard code was the habitability of the rental property. <br /> <br />Mr. Pap~ reiterated that tenants should not benefit from their own ill-caused actions and without such a <br />provision, they could. <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 22, 2004 Page 10 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />