Laserfiche WebLink
documentation was needed for the City to initiate action on a complaint. Mr. Poling supported holding a <br />public hearing on the topic. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly commended the staff work on the ordinance. He pointed out the ordinance was intended to allow <br />people who live in Eugene live in habitable dwellings with electricity, heat, and weatherproofing. He <br />thought those were basic needs and the ordinance represented important work. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly supported the staff recommendations and moving the ordinance to a public hearing. He suggested <br />the hearing be held in October 2004, following the return of University of Oregon students. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly supported a phased implementation of the ordinance. <br /> <br />Speaking to Mr. Papa's concerns, Mr. Kelly believed that Section 8 units still needed to comply with the <br />standards but pointed out to Mr. Pap~ they would be exempted from paying the fee under the proposed draft <br />ordinance. <br /> <br />With regard to the HPB discussion about substandard units meeting a need, Mr. Kelly said the council <br />should not be encouraging the continuance of such substandard units. He said that while more low-income <br />housing was needed, a $10 per unit fee would not realize sufficient funding for that purpose as it would only <br />realize $200,000 a year. He did not think the issue needed to be one of %ither or." <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly pointed out a sunset was not needed for the council to review the ordinance. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson believed the council discussed a solution to the problem before it discussed what the problem <br />was. She asked how many other cities had such a program. Ms. Miller said staff had mainly worked with <br />Corvallis at the direction of the council and had not done such an investigation. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson was interested in more discussion about what units, if any, should be exempt from the fee. <br />She did not want to exempt any units that should be included. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson also questioned the need for two to three FTE for program start-up. She was concerned <br />about the scale of the program, particularly because of other council budget decisions, such as its decision to <br />reduce funding for land use enforcement for nuisance complaints, which often involved hazardous or stress <br />situations that could lead to public safety issues and had a negative impact on residents' quality of life. <br />While she wanted to do something, she questioned whether what was being proposed was at the correct <br />scale. She asked how many calls the Corvallis program received. Ms. Miller indicated that Corvallis <br />received 35 calls monthly. Ms. Nathanson questioned whether two to three staff would be needed to address <br />approximately 80 calls monthly. She called for more empirical statistical data. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman shared the concerns expressed by Ms. Nathanson and Mr. Meisner regarding the number of <br />FTEs being proposed, and suggested the council revisit that issue once the program was underway. She <br />believed the deterrent effect of the program would, over time, allow for a reduction in program staff. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman said that a member of the HPB she had spoken to indicated she would have liked to have seen <br />a more far-reaching program, and for that reason did not support the ordinance. <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council August 11, 2004 Page 3 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />