06/15/1983 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

John Van Landingham, 1172 West 5th Avenue, said he was chairperson of the Joint e Housing Committee. He noted that at its June 6, 1983, meeting the JHC had voted 4:0 in favor of recommending repeal of the Housing Code to the City Council. He said that the committee had received testimony regarding repeal of the weatheriza- tion ordinance and that the group had voted 3:1 to recommend retention of the ordinance. He noted that the committee had recognized that there were problems with the weatherization ordinance but had felt that these could be addressed when the council reviews the ordinance, as required by the adopted code, in January 1984. Mr. Van Landingham, speaking both as a JHC member and as an attorney for tenants, said that some advantages of repeal of the Housing Code were that 1) there would be savings to the City; 2) the code includes regulations that are not related to health and safety and that have discouraged housing rehabilitation; 3) State landlord/tenant law provides some regulations to protect residents; 4) enforcement of the City Housing Code has not always been consistent or successful; and 5) the high vacancy rate provides its own protection. Mr. Van Landingham said that if the Housing Code is repealed, all that would be left in the City Code to protect consumers were regulations regarding dangerous buildings and nuisances, with no requirements for provision of water, electricity, and heat. He said that the existing high vacancy rate would not continue for long and that as the vacancy rate declines, the council should direct staff to begin work on a new housing code that would be simpler to administer and enforce, perhaps with imposition of fines, and would concentrate on health and safety i s s ue s . Paul Farrar, 23348 South Central Point Road, Canby, proposed several amendments to the weatherization ordinance. He noted that weatherization as currently mandated could cost $1,000 or more per home and that over 10,000 homes in Eugene e do not meet the requirements of the ordinance. He said this would result in expenditure of $10 million in private funds to comply with the ordinance. He said that weatherization needed to be done properly and that if over-weather- ization were required it could lead to structural damage or health hazards. He said it was imperative that weatherization inspectors be certified as per ORS 456.805 and that the enforcement procedure include provisions for a hearing and findings of fact before the City takes any enforcement action. Referring to page 10 of the old ordinance, Mr. Farrar noted that right of entry had called for a court order. He said that in the new ordinance the word "court" had been omitted. He felt that a court order should be required. He said that under Section 8.300(4) the City Council would no longer be available to hear appeals, and he thus urged the council to institute due process at earlier levels. Referring to Section 8.290(3) of the ordinance, Mr. Farrar suggested that the Building Official be responsible for providing proposed findings and that the owner be given the right to a hearing and appeal. Referring to Section 8.300(2e), Mr. Farrar said that appeals boards, such as the Construction Code Board of Appeals, should be required to adopt procedural rules and regulations. He noted that Assistant Superintendent of Building Inspection Larry Reed and Senior Plans Examiner Darrell Kahl had told him the CCBA had never done this. Mr. Farrar suggested that the council adopt rules and regulations for the board, as contained in Chapter 13 of the 1973 Uniform Housing Code. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 15, 1983 Page 4