Item 2A: Approval of City Council Minutes

Home Browse Search

Mr. Pryor, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to approve the Sustainability Commission first work plan framework (which does not assume an allocation of resources or funding at this time). The motion passed unanimously, 6:0. B. WORK SESSION Rental Housing Code Update Mr. Ruiz asked Rachelle Nicholas, code enforcement supervisor for the Planning and Development Department (PDD), to provide an overview of the code update. Ms. Nicholas highlighted the program overview and the funding of the rental housing code, which was provided in the Agenda Item Summary (AIS). She underscored that the money the annual assessment on rental owners had generated was mandated by the ordinance to remain with the program. She said the options included a reduction in the assessment from $10 per unit to $8 per unit and potentially scheduling a public hearing on the ordinance. Ms. Taylor supported the ordinance and supported scheduling a public hearing on it. She suggested that the late fees be dropped, though she did not favor reducing the fees. Mayor Piercy asked if there was an appeal process for the late fee in case, for example, a rental owner had been out of town when the assessment was due. Ms. Nicholas replied that there was not a formal appeal process but anyone could telephone staff and request that the late fee be waived. Mr. Clark thanked staff for its hard work. He observed that the City had fielded 106 legitimate complaints. He wondered if those complaints had also been submitted to state agencies and whether the City was duplicating state efforts. He asked if the complainants were receiving any relief from another agency. Ms. Nicholas replied that there was not another agency. She explained that while rental housing complaints were covered by the Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS), a complainant would have to hire an attorney and go through a court process. Mr. Clark was troubled by this “make work” item in the face of current constraints the City would face. He commented that when looking at the additional sorts of priority items the City would have to address, this had a lower priority than other things. He asked how the $60,000 estimated to be brought in by adding the mold, security, and smoke detectors would be spent. Ms. Nicholas responded that the sum was based on an estimate of how many complaints had been made which staff had been unable to handle the previous year. She felt it could become necessary to hire another person. Mr. Clark could not support the ordinance as it was presented. Ms. Bettman supported the recommendation to hold a public hearing. She also supported the habitability standards. She added that it was good that the program was paying for itself. She asked why the ordinance limited mold only to what would be visible. She also wanted to know how many of the 103 mold requests had been in regard to visible mold. Ms. Nicholas replied that the majority called about visible mold. She surmised that anything but visible mold would be difficult to respond to without the aid of someone who specialized in this. Mr. Pryor appreciated that staff had followed through on previous discussions. He supported the ordinance as it stood. He saw it as a health and safety issue. Ms. Solomon understood that mold was difficult to determine in the State of Oregon. She observed that people identify it differently. Ms. Nicholas responded that she did not have a personal interest in adding mold to the ordinance; the addition had arisen from council interest in doing so. She related that what staff saw in the field was mold that had a cause that was not being addressed, such as leaky plumbing or a leaky roof. She stated that at this time the ordinance language required landlords to correct faults such as leaks. MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 23, 2008 Page 4 Work Session