Item 2A - Approval of Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Ms. Nathanson expressed some concern with a phased implementation because neither the problem nor the type of units to be covered had been clearly defined. She said the proposed phased approach would address multi-family units first and she was not certain that those presented the greatest problem, which meant assistance for tenants who needed it the most would be postponed until the second phase. Ms. Nathanson questioned how the estimated start-up costs would be funded and asked about exemptions for owner-occupied units, noting that other communities provided that exemption. Referring to Mr. Meisner's example, she said that other programs levied a fee for the unit and an additional small fee per bedroom. She encouraged councilors to read the informative report from a group that studied the issue of a Eugene housing program five years earlier. Given that Eugene had three times the number of rental units, she asked if Eugene's situation was comparable to or worse than Corvallis' situation. Ms. Miller replied that she had no way to assess that and the lack of reliable data presented challenges to the discussion of a housing code. Mr. Pap~ said that he had contacted Corvallis Mayor Helen Berg to discuss the Corvallis program. He said that Mayor Berg was supportive of the program and had estimated that of the 150 complaints processed annually, one-half were resolved once the landlord was contacted about the problem. He said that Corvallis left issues related to rental contract disputes to the court system. He suggested that Small Claims Court could be used to process complaints under State law without the need to hire an attorney. Mr. Pap~ expressed concern about the two to three FTEs needed to operate an ongoing program. He said the Corvallis program was handled through the Housing Department and functions were split among staff and not assigned to a specific individual. Ms. Miller said that her understanding, based on discussions with the Corvallis staff person who managed the program, was that three-quarters of his time was spent answering calls, which numbered about 400 per year, resolving complaints and investigating those complaints that could not be resolved in the early stages. Mr. Pap~ suggested that instead of establishing positions to handle the program, complaints could be addressed through contracted private dispute-resolution services, with the City collecting fees and providing oversight. Mr. Poling expressed concern with the start-up costs, establishing two to three FTEs, and classification of owner-occupied units. He asked what types of costs were incurred by landlords and tenants through the existing housing services such as Lane County Law and Advocacy Center and Associated Students of the University of Oregon. Ms. Miller replied that those organizations did not charge for their services. Mr. Poling asked if individual complainants would have to pay costs up front if a suit in Circuit Court was instigated. He asked if arbitration and mediation for contract dispute resolution could be included to avoid filing a court case. Ms. Miller replied that she would research how court costs were covered and that arbitration and mediation services were options that the council could direct staff to explore. Mr. Poling referred to form letters he had received from the Rental Owners Association of Lane County voicing concerns that fees assessed to owners would increase the cost of housing and advocating that the program be funded through fines and assessments, which he felt would leave the program in an unstable funding position. He was in favor of moving the issue forward to the next step but was concerned about how the start-up costs would be funded. Ms. Bettman commented that without an enforcement mechanism, there was no way to inventory complaints MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 24, 2004 Page 3 Work Session