CCMinutes - 11/22/04 WS - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mr. Kelly said that when the issue of tenant-caused problems was first raised he thought it had some merit, but he was not comfortable with the phrasing of the amendment and could not now see how there was a benefit to the tenant as a landlord would only be restoring the unit to its prior condition, not improving it. He said that some tenant damage could constitute a criminal act and there was likely civil recourse available to the landlord; Corvallis had not reported any problems related to tenant damage. He said the language was too ~fuzzy" to be included in the code and he could not support the amendment. He pointed out that many units had multiple tenants and if one tenant caused the damage, then the others were faced with a habitability issue. Ms. Bettman said she could not support the amendment as it appeared to put the City in the position of determining criminal culpability and the landlord had other remedies available. The motion to amend Section 8.430(3) of the ordinance failed, 7:1; Mr. Pap~ voting in favor. Mr. Pap~ said that he was concerned about the cost of the program, as were other councilors, and he had not seen a satisfactory response. Mr. Pap~ moved to Section 8.440(2) to read: ~For the purpose of offsetting the costs to the City associated with the enforcement of this code, the City Manager, using the process contained in Section 2.020 of this code, shall set an annual fee for each dwelling unit covered by a rental agreement. Such fee shall not be more than five dollars per unit through December 31, 2006." The motion died for lack of a second. Speaking to the main motion as amended, Mr. Meisner said he had asked about the anti-retaliation provisions of State law. He said that housing advocate John Van Landingham confirmed that State law protected against retaliation on the basis of complaint by any local government. Mr. Meisner moved, seconded by Mr. Pap~, to strike Section 8.410(2)(d) that ex- cluded from coverage a single-family home or structure occupied by renters as well as its owner. Mr. Meisner said he first thought that such an exemption should be retained, but realized that an owner was not going to file a complaint against him or herself. Mr. Kelly agreed with Mr. Meisner's point and asked if staff had any concerns. Ms. Miller said she did not object to striking the provision. The motion to amend Section 8.410(2) passed unanimously. Speaking to the main motion as amended, Ms. Bettman said one of the reasons that only anecdotal information was available was the lack of databases and the program would provide substantial data once it was in effect and the issues could be evaluated. She said she had seen the issue from both perspectives and was pleased that a locally enforceable mechanism was being created for minimum habitability standards that would provide a local remedy for the worst cases. On the issue of fees, she said those would be established administratively and the council would have an opportunity to respond or ask for a work session if there were concerns. She said that there already existed in the community databases to create an inventory and MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 22, 2004 Page 11 Work Session