Item 5: Ordinance Expanding Rental Housing Code Language

Home Browse Search

ECC UGENE ITY OUNCIL AIS GENDA TEM UMMARY Action: Ordinance Concerning Rental Housing Standards; Amending Section 8.425 of the Eugene Code, 1971 Meeting Date: April 27, 2009 Agenda Item Number: 5 Department: Planning and Development Staff Contact: Rachelle Nicholas www.eugene-or.gov Contact Telephone Number: 682-5495 ISSUE STATEMENT The City Council is scheduled to take action on a proposed ordinance that would add language to existing code to address the source of mold in rental housing. BACKGROUND In October 2007, the City Council directed staff to draft code language to address mold, security and smoke detectors in rental housing. Subsequent council action removed mold language from the ordinance to allow time for further review and public input. Following council direction, the Planning and Development Department formed a six-member advisory committee to discuss the topic and obtain public input. After meeting and hearing public testimony, the committee recommends adding language to the existing code standards to address the source of the mold rather than the existence of mold. The experts advised the committee that visible mold was a sign of water intrusion. The committee believes it would be most beneficial to regulate the cause of the mold rather than the presence of mold by itself. The proposed language provides that serious visible mold will be treated as a symptom of water intrusion caused by faulty weatherproofing, plumbing or structural integrity. The proposed ordinance does not prohibit the presence of mold. A public hearing was held April 20, 2009, on the proposed ordinance. Four people testified at the hearing and additional testimony was submitted to staff. Two opposed the proposal and three were supportive. Two themes of concern came from the testimony. One concern is the subjective nature of the phrase “significant” visible mold. The committee spent considerable time on this point and it was after evaluation of other programs (e.g. San Francisco, Gresham, and Stockton) that they found comfort with the term “significant” visible mold. Experience by these agencies indicates that legitimate mold problems are obvious to the knowledgeable observer. Property owners are anxious that they may become responsible for abatement of mold based on a subjective determination that the mold is “significant” and this may be applied to a range of trouble spots like window tracks and shower enclosures. Experience of other jurisdictions shows this not to be the case. The second concern is whether excess fees are retained within the Rental Housing Code budget or if unspent funds are absorbed into the general fund. Excess revenues continue to be tracked and rolled forward annually toward next year’s operating budget. The money is not used for other general fund Z:\CMO\2009 Council Agendas\M090427\S0904275.doc