Item 2A: Approval of City Council Minutes

Home Browse Search

Ms. Bettman commended the program. She felt the housing stock in the City was slowly being upgraded. She said she would be happy to entertain Mr. Clark’s motion, but she would want to see a spreadsheet of the budget with the lowered $8 per unit fee. Ms. Solomon asked if all of the rental units were in the database at this point. Ms. Nicholas responded that they were working on it. She said the billable addresses changed daily and were hard to track. Ms. Taylor was not in favor of reducing the fees. She suggested that mold be added to the list of hazards that had to be remedied given dangers of living in moldy conditions. She asked if smoke detectors were required. Ms. Nicholas replied that they were required by Oregon Revised Statutes but they were only tracked in multi-family units. Ms. Taylor thought the council should consider making the late fees more reasonable. She concluded by saying that the program had resulted from citizen actions. She commended the people who had undertaken it. Mr. Zelenka called it a “great” ordinance as it protected students and low-income families. With regard to a reduction in fees, he was somewhat troubled given that the number of complaints had increased. He had some concern that the surplus would ultimately disappear. In response to a question from Mr. Zelenka, Ms. Nicholas clarified that staff found places that did not have smoke detectors but were not able to enforce the State law. Mr. Zelenka asked what the law was in respect to smoke detectors. Ms. Nicholas replied that the owner was supposed to install smoke detectors. Mr. Zelenka asked how many rental units did not have smoke detectors. Ms. Nicholas responded that the majority of single-family units did not have them. Mr. Zelenka thought the council should consider adding smoke detectors to the ordinance. He also agreed that mold was something that should be looked into. Ms. Nicholas stated, in a follow-up question, that a lack of locking doors and windows was a frequent complaint. Mr. Zelenka asked staff to bring back language for a proposal to include smoke detectors, mold, and locks in the ordinance language. Mr. Pryor echoed Mr. Zelenka. He agreed that mold was an issue as well. He related that there had been a presentation from a fire chief at the National Leagues of Cities conference, the gist of which was that working smoke detectors were a “must.” He did not strongly support a fee reduction. He added that locking doors and windows were absolutely important. In response to a question from Mr. Poling, Ms. Nicholas clarified that the money was a flat fee and was not based on the number of complaints. Mr. Poling also supported the additions to the language that Mr. Zelenka had requested. Ms. Ortiz concurred. She averred that if it became a hardship for a person to undertake a large smoke detector installation the City should consider a way to help him or her. Mayor Piercy asked if there had been any evidence of tenants experiencing backlash after making a complaint or withholding a complaint out of fear that the landlord would retaliate. Ms. Nicholas replied that she thought it had happened on occasion. She said for the most part having the City come to the rental location with the owner there put the tenant and landlord on a better track for communication. MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 8, 2007 Page 9 Work Session