Laserfiche WebLink
Metadata
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015 Laserfiche. All rights reserved.
<br /> Laura Johnson, 1810 Fairmount Boulevard, said that she had followed the matter <br /> of the weatherization ordinance for some time and had opposed it. She felt that <br /> e the way the amendments before the council were written indicated that enforcement <br /> of the ordinance would begin immediately, whereas the original ordinance had <br /> called for council review in January 1984 with an effective date of January <br /> 1985. She said circumstances had changed since the adoption of the ordinance <br /> and that there were now surpluses of electricity, gas, and oil. She urged the <br /> council to eliminate the weatherization code and reconsider the matter if fuel <br /> shortages occur in the future. She discussed flaws in the existing ordinance <br /> that had been mentioned in a report distributed to the JHC by John Bennett of <br /> the Lane County Homebuilders' Association, including discrimination against <br /> owners of buildings with fewer than four units (buildings of four or more units <br /> are exempt under the existing ordinance). Ms. Johnson said that there was danger <br /> to residents of totally weatherized houses from trapping of harmful gases. <br /> Councilor Obie raised a point of order and noted that the agenda item dealt with <br /> repeal of the Housing Code, not with the weatherization ordinance. Mr. Sercombe <br /> noted that there would be a required review of the weatherization ordinance by <br /> the council in January 1984. He said that some of the process in the weatheriza- <br /> tion ordinance had been modified in the amendments before the council but none <br /> of the substance of the ordinance. <br /> Ms. Johnson noted that she had waited until 10:30 p.m. at the June 13 council <br /> meeting for an opportunity to speak on this matter, before being told that the <br /> item would be postponed to June 15. She felt that there were substantive <br /> changes proposed to the ordinance. <br /> Councilor Schue noted that the Joint Housing Committee had also struggled with <br /> e the weatherization issue and had agreed to have staff respond to concerns <br /> raised. She said the council was not prepared to discuss the weatherization <br /> ordinance at this time. <br /> Mayor Keller ruled that further testimony regarding the weatherization ordinance <br /> at this time was inappropriate and out of order. <br /> Councilor Hansen said that if the weatherization ordinance was being modified, <br /> citizens should be allowed to speak. He felt that if there were no modifications, <br /> testimony should be postponed until January 1984 when the council considers the <br /> matter. <br /> Mr. Gleason said that no substantive changes were proposed to the weatherization <br /> ordinance and that only changes were to provide uniformity in codification of <br /> the laws. Mr. Sercombe added that the process involved in the weatherization <br /> ordinance was modified in the proposed amendments by some stylistic and a few <br /> substantive changes but stressed that neither the changes nor the weatherization <br /> ordinance itself would be effective until January 1985, with a full council <br /> review scheduled in January 1984. Responding to a question from Councilor <br /> Wooten, Mr. Sercombe said that the changes included renaming the Housing Board <br /> of Appeals the Weatherization Code Board of Appeals, modification of language <br /> regarding the right to perform inspections, and definition of what constitutes a <br /> "crack" in a structure. <br /> e MINUTES--Eugene City Council <br /> June 15, 1983 Page 5 <br />