CC Minutes - 06/26/06 City Council Meeting

Home Browse Search

4. PUBLIC HEARING: An Ordinance Concerning Condominiums and Manufactured Dwelling Parks; Amending Sections 2.1060, 2.1064, 2.1070, and 2.1074 of the Eugene Code, 1971; and Declaring an Immediate Effec- tive Date City Manager Taylor asked Grants Manager for the Community Development Division of the Planning and Development Department (PDD), Linda Dawson, to address this issue. Ms. Dawson explained that the public hearing sought testimony on proposed code revisions governing condominium conversions. She noted that the City regulated such conversions since 1981. She listed three basic provisions to tenants in existing units and to potential purchasers that were listed in the code: 1. The developer is required to hire a housing counselor to assist the tenant in finding a comparable unit; 2. Monetary benefits for moving costs are provided to special category tenants, i.e. people with low incomes, elderly people, and persons with disabilities; 3. Purchasers are made aware of the building conditions. Ms. Dawson stated that this issue had arisen from recent interest in condominium conversions. She said four changes were being proposed and those changes had been reviewed by the Housing Policy Board (HPB). The HPB forwarded a recommendation to adopt the ordinance. She listed the changes, as follows: 1. The requirement for a certified engineer report was changed to a requirement for a more commonly available report from a reserve specialist; 2. The moving costs would be tied to the Federal Uniform Relocation Act, to ensure that costs were kept current in the market; 3. The requirement for the city building inspection was being eliminated; 4. The tenant’s right to stay was being clarified so that it was understood the tenant had 120 days from the time the application for the permit was received. Ms. Dawson noted that action on this item was scheduled for July 10. Councilor Bettman asked if Springfield had the same language in an ordinance. Ms. Dawson replied that she was not aware that the City of Springfield had such an ordinance. Councilor Bettman observed that the moving expenses were only reimbursable if the displaced tenant moved within the City limits of Eugene. She felt that under this provision a tenant would be “almost penalized” if he or she moved to Springfield. Councilor Bettman asked if any testimony had been received by the HPB regarding the reduction of time the tenant had a right to remain in an apartment. Ms. Dawson responded that there had been some concern, though no testimony, on this but she felt it was good to distinctly delineate the time period. She said it was approximately the same amount of time, ultimately, but now it was clearly tied to the issuance of the permit. Councilor Bettman asked Ms. Dawson to characterize the testimony on that issue given before the HPB. Ms. Dawson replied that there had been a brief discussion of the HPB. MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 26, 2006 Page 6 Regular Meeting