02/09/1981 Meeting (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

tit Stanley Greenfield, 2056 Orchard, spoke against the mandatory aspect of the ordinance. He found the arguments in the memorandum about including oil and gas invalid. He concluded that the City might also face individual suits from people who became sick as a result of too-tight weatherization procedures. Don Read, 815 Doris, said he was really in favor of the ordinance. He suggested filling the attic and crawl spaces with insulation; make all ceilings 7'6"; ban split-level houses; eliminate picture windows; make all doors 3'6" high; no one person should have more than 300 square feet of house; give tax credit to fami- lies having six or more in an 1,100-square-foot house. This would be paid for by a no-interest EWEB loan. The more plants not built, the more money saved-- maybe 20 percent--but with BPA's proposed 16 percent, then all electricity bills would be 36 percent off. Finally, it is known that cars use less gas going downhill, so all houses would have to be built with streets sloping down. The question of how to get back would have to be worked out by the council, who had come up with sillier ideas than these. Earl McElhany, 2797 Burlington, Springfield, representing the Rental Owners Association of Eugene/Springfield, read a letter addressed to Mr. Page and council members that spoke to four issues: e. 1. City Code violations due to noncompliance status: The ordinance does not define when noncompliance status begins (except after January 1, 1985). Inc~on of a section describing the enforcement procedures and an allowable grace period (say 90 days) to inform the property owner and for him to remedy the violation (please refer to page 2, paragraphs 2 and 3 of the Energy Conservation Policy Board's initial discussion on March 5, 1980). 2. Excluded property: If weatherization is as good as you say, then the City should at least commit itself to a course of action to ensure all unweatherized properties are required to weatherize after January 1~ 1985. The City will have almost four years to enact ordinances cover- ing commercial, industrial, governmental, and residential properties of five or more units. If all properties are not subject to a manda- tory requirement by January 1, 1985, then mandatory weatherization of residential units of four or less units shall not become effective until such time all properties are covered by mandatory weatherization. 3. Appeals process: The ordinance does not require the establishment of an appeals process to handle special cases. The ordinance only says the City Council shall"review and consider." An appeals process should be a requirement before weatherization becomes mandatory and should consider disputes over cost-effective improvements, unsafe conditions that will result from the improvements, and exemptions to property owners where demonstrable financial hardships result. 4. Financing: The ordinance presupposes the availability of EWEB non- interest or low-interest financing to the property owner. Mandatory weatherization should not be required unless there is available non-interest, low-interest, grant or rate-base financing from EWEB, 1\ e MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 9, 1981 Page 8