Laserfiche WebLink
Ms. Swanson Gribskov questioned how many residents qualified for the protections offered by <br />the park closure ordinance during the most recent such closure. Ms. Dawson said that there <br />were 17 tenants who qualified for the protections offered by the ordinance. <br /> <br />Mr. Torrey asked how much more than the current application fee of $550 should be charged to <br />recover the administrative costs. Ms. Dawson recommended a base fee of $2,500, plus an <br />hourly rate for additional work not covered by that fee. She said that in the case of a small <br />condominium conversion, $2,500 might cover the costs of administering the ordinance. <br /> <br />Responding to a question from Mr. Torrey, City Attorney Glenn Klein confirmed that the council <br />could increase the fee without a vote if the fee increase went into effect July 1, 1998, or after; <br />under Ballot Measure 50, General Fund resources could be replaced without a vote if the fee <br />increase or new fee did not take effect until after that date. <br /> <br />Ms. Swanson Gribskov expressed interest in knowing the number of affected tenants over time <br />before the public hearing. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson said that she did not favor scheduling a public hearing at this time. She believed <br />that the ordinances were still needed. She did not hear other councilors speaking in support of <br />repeal. <br /> <br />Mr. Farr said that the ordinances concerned the loss of housing stock from the market, and he <br />believed that the community had a shortfall of Iow- and moderate-income housing. He said that <br />he preferred to strengthen the ordinance to make those who eliminate such housing pay more. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor supported retention of the ordinances, in particular the condominium conversion <br />ordinance, although she acknowledged it had not been employed lately. She asked if a property <br />owner receiving a tax exemption for Iow-income housing could convert those units to <br />condominiums upon expiration of the exemption. Mr. Klein indicated he would research the <br />question. <br /> <br />Mr. Tollenaar referred to the draft Residential Lands Study policies cited in support of the staff <br />recommendation, and said that the policies were not applicable to the repeal of the manufactured <br />home park closure ordinance. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner said that he did not want to hold a public hearing. He agreed that there might be a <br />better way to address the administrative costs for the ordinances, but questioned why the council <br />was being offered the proposal at the same time it was being asked to consider a new Housing <br />Code. Mr. Meisner said it seemed odd to abandon one type of housing while increasing <br />protection for another type. He shared Mr. Farr's concern over the loss of housing stock, and <br />pointed out that much housing downtown had been converted to other uses. <br /> <br />Ms. Swanson Gribskov said that while there may be changes needed, there appeared to be <br />consensus that the council did not want to hold a public hearing on repealing the ordinances. <br />Mr. Klein noted that the fees were set by administrative rule, and any changes proposed to the <br />fee structure by the City Manager were subject to public review. If the council wished to retain <br />the ordinances, there was no need for a public hearing. <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 12, 1998 Page 3 <br />5:30 p.m. <br /> <br /> <br />