My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Item 2A: Approval of Council Minutes
COE
>
City of Eugene
>
Council Agendas 2012
>
CC Agenda - 02/13/12 Meeting
>
Item 2A: Approval of Council Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/10/2012 1:48:04 PM
Creation date
2/10/2012 11:35:08 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council
City_Council_Document_Type
Agenda Item Summary
CMO_Meeting_Date
2/13/2012
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
29
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
paying $30,000 for general City accounting costs and that money did nothing for tenants or landlords. He <br />said the program might have helped a few people but not enough to justify its continuation. <br /> <br />Michael Steffen <br />, 3709 Pine Canyon Drive, opposed extending the sunset for the Rental Housing Code for <br />any period of time. He agreed the program was redundant of State law and said if there was to be such a <br />program another approach should be found. He did not City government was the most effective program <br />provider. He agreed that the program was over-collecting revenues and was administrative-heavy. He <br />questioned why the City was spending $33,000 annually on overhead costs. Mr. Steffen estimated the <br />City’s cost for each valid complaint to be $11,600. He also had concerns about transparency as it related <br />to the program, saying it was difficult to get information from staff about how it was spending its time. <br /> <br />Marlene Varady <br />, Ward 2, identified herself as a rental property owner and recommended that the <br />council extend the sunset date. She said the program’s excess revenues had been used to help tenants <br />make complaints about landlords who were not taking care of their properties. She considered that a good <br />thing. She suggested the program reserves be used to house homeless youth and proposed the City rent a <br />school for that purpose and allow the Rental Housing Association of Lane County to oversee the use of <br />funds. <br /> <br />Dennis Casady <br />, PO Box 5028, asked that the ordinance be sunsetted and unused funds be returned to the <br />landlords. He believed that the Rental Housing Code was duplicative of Oregon Landlord Tenant Law, <br />which addressed all the issues covered by Eugene’s code. He pointed out that if a tenant had a problem <br />he or she could take a landlord to court, stop paying rent, or repair the problem and deduct the cost of the <br />repairs from the rent. He believed the City’s accountability for the program left much to be desired, and <br />pointed out the totals did not match in the complaint report provided to the council. As additional <br />evidence of the lack of accountability, Mr. Casady said that for the past two years he had received bills <br />from the City for two properties that were still under construction and lacked occupancy permits. <br /> <br />rd <br />Maureen McCauley <br />, 1755 East 23 Avenue, also asked the council to allow the ordinance to sunset. <br />She did not believe the ordinance was being administered in a fair and equitable manner. She described <br />her experience with the program and said she had to pay a nonrefundable $250 fee for her side of the <br />story to be heard. She had been cited for violating the code’s heating standards but the City had not tested <br />the system and it was misidentified as an oil heating system in the City’s report when it was actually a <br />natural gas system. The system was subsequently professionally tested by Home Comfort and it met all <br />City standards. She had provided a copy of the Home Comfort report and a copy of the appeal filed by an <br />attorney she was forced to hire to fight the City’s order to correct. The City Manager subsequently <br />rescinded the order to correct. She said the experience was a costly emotional ordeal. <br /> <br />John VanLandingham <br />, 335 Grand Street, Lane County Legal Aid and Advocacy Center, said he <br />represented low-income tenants in landlord-tenant matters. He supported extending the sunset while the <br />City reviewed the program. He believed that State law was onerous and risky for tenants to use. While <br />State law did not require a tenant to hire a lawyer to sue a landlord, he averred one was necessary and <br />Eugene only had two lawyers who dealt with such lawsuits, which took a long time to be heard. He <br />further averred that tenants risked immediate eviction and ruined credit if they withheld rent as permitted <br />by State law. Mr. VanLandingham also maintained the purpose of the code was to improve the quality of <br />the community’s rental housing stock. He believed a neutral, City-funded program was necessary if the <br />City wanted to be notified that something was wrong with a rental. <br /> <br />Scott Sanders <br />, 495 Berrywood, opposed the extension of the Rental Housing Code. He suggested that <br />unless the public believed the council was managing government funds efficiently it would be hard to get <br />support for even the most valuable public services. He said the cost of the Rental Housing Program was <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 21, 2011 Page 5 <br /> Public Hearing <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.