CCMinutes - 11/22/04 WS - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Speaking to the amended main motion, Ms. Nathanson expressed concern with the scope and cost of the program. She said the council was interested in an enforcement program, not an information program. She pointed out that the Corvallis program had become primarily an information and help program and could be done for less than Eugene's estimated cost. She wished the program cost less and was mostly concerned with enforcement, but would support the motion. Ms. Bettman moved, seconded by Mr. Kelly, to amend Section 8.440(3) as set forth in Section 1 of the Ordinance, to provide as follows: ~(3) The following unit types, while subject to the standards, enforcement proce- dures, and other requirements established in sections 8.400 through 8.440 of this code, shall be exempt from the fee payment requirements: (a) Rentals with a recorded deed restriction requiring the units to be rented affordably to households at or below 60 percent of the Area Median income; (b) Rentals that have been approved by the city for an exemption from property taxes pursuant to sections 2.910 to 2.922 and 2.937 to 2.940 of this code or that are recognized by the city as exempt from property taxes pursuant to ORS 307.092." Ms. Bettman said she understood the language would exempt units that were already publicly subsidized and already had an oversight function from a public body in terms of habitability. Ms. Miller agreed that the language applied to affordable housing units. Ms. Taylor asked why the rentals under part b of the amendment to Section 8.440(3) were exempt from fees. Ms. Miller said that the rentals were exempt from fees because they met certain affordability standards by being exempt from property taxes according to the cited sections of the Eugene Code. The motion to amend Section 8.440(3) of the ordinance passed unanimously. Ms. Solomon, speaking to the main motion as amended, said she voted for the amendments because they made the program a better product, but was not convinced that the product was good for Eugene. She appreciated the high energy and coordinated campaign conducted by advocates for the program; however, she still believed that the program was a solution without a problem that was backed up by statistical data. She expressed concern about the cost of the program and the fact that multi-family housing units would be the first phase when problems were most likely concentrated in single-family houses. She said that education would be a better response to the issue and landlords could be required to include educational materials in rental agreements. She said that the best use of City resources was to strengthen State law and her fundamental core belief was that government should not be grown and the program was growing government; she would vote against the motion. Mr. Kelly commented that if growing government was to improve the chances that renters in Eugene would have plumbing that worked, roofs that did not leak, and heating, that was one of the best reasons to grow government. He had some minor concerns with details of program implementation but thought the program was a positive step to assure the 50 percent of the population who were renters were treated fairly in rental housing. He said he would support the motion and thanked everyone involved in bringing the program to fruition. He noted that although the database will be built initially from multi-family rather than single- family housing, on the first day of the program the City will be able to take and process complaints regarding single-family dwellings. MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 22, 2004 Page 9 Work Session