Item 2A - Approval of Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

and problems. She related that her first experience with the issue was during her first campaign for office and she heard from many people during door-to-door visits that housing concerns were a top priority and tenants felt helpless to deal with substandard housing. She said she supported moving the issue forward and the ongoing costs attributable to the two or three FTEs could be minimized by eliminating outreach and education and focusing on enforcement. She expressed concern that mediation was not an appropriate tool to address habitability issues, using the example of defective plumbing that was either repaired or was not. She appreciated the option of a phased implementation approach and noted that the six-month period between the first and second phases was relatively short and should not be an issue. She asked how use of civil penalties for enforcement of nuisance and unsafe building codes was functioning. Ms. Miller said the civil penalty process worked well because it could be done administratively, a penalty could be assessed on a daily basis when a condition continued, and it was a flexible and effective enforcement tool. Ms. Taylor stated she was in favor of moving forward with an ordinance. She said a combination of fees plus fines could support the program and just having the possibility of enforcement would reduce the necessity. She did not feel the State law was adequate because of the enforcement difficulties and she would support a phased approach. Mayor Torrey said he was in favor of not using the Municipal Court for enforcement. He suggested that staff contact the Corvallis program and ask what they would change if drafting an ordinance again; what worked well and what should be done differently. He asked the city manager where he proposed to obtain the start-up funding and said that the program should be initially understaffed and the need for additional staff demonstrated. Mr. Kelly moved, seconded by Mr. Poling, to direct the city manager to create draft ordinance language to create housing standards similar to Corvallis addressing habitability needs; the ordinance language to include funding mechanisms and an enforcement mechanism. Language should be brought, along with next steps, to the council in a work session prior to summer break. Mr. Kelly commented it would be desirable to have solid data to support the need for a housing ordinance, but having only anecdotal information did not mean the problem was not real. He said that surveying tenants could be problematic because they feared speaking out in any way that did not protect anonymity. He related that the manager of the Corvallis housing program confirmed Ms. Taylor's point about less need for enforcement once the possibility of enforcement existed. He asked staff to obtain feedback from the Human Rights Commission staff on ordinance language before it advanced to public hearings. Mr. Poling asked if the motion would give staff sufficient time to prepare the ordinance. Ms. Miller said that if the code was modeled on the Corvallis code there would be enough time. Mr. Poling agreed with a phased approach starting with multi-family units because of the time involved in identifying single-family units. He referred to a letter from the chair of the Harlow Neighbors Association reporting that the association had passed a motion on May 19, 2004, supporting the concept of City enforcement for minimum housing standards similar to those proposed by the Eugene Citizens for Housing Standards Coalition. Mr. Pap~ asked if Corvallis used State law in the four areas of habitability. Ms. Miller said that was correct. MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 24, 2004 Page 4 Work Session