CCMinutes - 02/09/04 WS - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

question. She said if the issue was enforcement, the council could spend considerable time adopting a housing code and still not be able to assist those who needed help. Ms. Nathanson suggested the real question was enforcement and the enforcement mechanism used. She asked if the City would set up a local mechanism, or offer subsidies to those who used the State statute. Ms. Nathanson, seconded by Mr. Papd, moved to ask the City Manager to prepare a scope of work for the council to be available no later than June 1, 2004, for a council work session, so that the council can assess the infor- mation and decide what to do. Mayor Torrey made the determination that the motion was an amendment to the prior amendment. Mr. Meisner was unsure he understood the distinction between the two motions. He said he would have offered further amendments to Mr. Kelly's motion because it appeared to be more focused on standards and less on enforceability. He said he had reviewed the housing codes of Portland and Salem, and would have also asked that the motion be broadened to those communities as he did not know if the Corvallis model was the best one. Mr. Kelly opposed the amendment. He acknowledged other communities had housing codes, but his motion was an attempt to limit the staff effort and resources needed. He specifically mentioned the Corvallis model in his motion because of his interest in local enforceability. He believed that requesting a scope of work was a way to push the effort off indefinitely. Ms. Nathanson said she included a date in her motion so as not to put off the item indefinitely. Speaking to Mr. Meisner's question, she said her motion called for a scope of work and a work session so the council would discuss the ramifications of the issue. Ms. Nathanson was not willing at this time to add another high-priority item to the work program without more information. She said it was not clear to her how the council could assign simultaneous top priorities to seven items. Ms. Bettman clarified with Ms. Nathanson that her motion did not add the item to the high-priority list at this time. She believed the proposed amendment put the issue on ~life support," so the council could ~pull the plug later" in the same manner in which the living wage ordinance was ~killed." She said the council had discussed the issue before and had a model to work with. She envisioned the issue could be addressed in the minor amendments to the Land Use Code, and more money could be allocated to the issue through the supplemental budget process. She opposed the amendment. Ms. Taylor also opposed the amendment and hoped to be able to support Mr. Kelly's amendment. She suggested the council was wasting time in talking about the details, which were subject for a later time. At this time, the council was merely saying such a program should be a high priority. She said the council had discussed the issue seven years ago, and people were discouraged that nothing had happened, while the need for a housing code continued to exist. The vote on the amendment to the motion was a 4:4 tie; Ms. Nathanson, Mr. Pap~, Mr. Poling, and Ms. Solomon voting yes; Mr. Meisner, Ms. Taylor, Mr. Kelly, and Ms. Bettman voting no. Mayor Torrey cast a vote in support of the amendment, and it passed on a final vote of 5:4. MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 9, 2004 Page 9 Work Session