Laserfiche WebLink
Ms. Bettman suggested the council include a provision in the ordinance that compelled landlords to provide <br />information about the program and State Housing Standards to tenants as soon as they signed a rental <br />agreement. She generally supported the staff recommendations and looked forward to the public hearing. <br /> <br /> Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Poling, moved to forward the housing stan- <br /> dards ordinance to a public hearing in October as per the staff recommen- <br /> dation. <br /> <br />Mayor Torrey called for comment on the motion. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly supported the motion. He shared the concerns expressed by others about the number of FTEs and <br />suggested the possibility that some of the staff be hired on a temporary basis so that the manager had the <br />ability to adjust staff levels. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly wanted a thorough program accounting on an annual basis so that carryover revenues could be <br />used to lower the fee in subsequent years. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor endorsed Mr. Kelly's remarks about staffing. She believed that at the program's inception, <br />there would be more complaints. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson discussed the proposed phase approach, agreeing that was an appropriate approach, and <br />asked what statistical evidence the City had of where people were encountering the most problems. She <br />wanted to ensure the program helped those who needed it most and most quickly. She asked if the phased-in <br />approach helped those most in need first. Ms. Miller said the City had no baseline experience with the <br />program demand or about those who needed it at the current time. She believed from anecdotal evidence <br />that there were more problems in single-family units than in apartment dwellings. That concerned Ms. <br />Nathanson because the phased approach focused more on apartments. She reiterated her interest in getting <br />help where it was most needed. Ms. Miller said the phasing was predicated on the elements of the program <br />easiest to get up and running. <br /> <br />Mr. Pap6 wanted to move the ordinance forward and indicated support for the motion. <br /> <br />Mr. Poling said the ordinance was intended to help the renters but also landlords, the vast majority of which <br />were good landlords and attendant to the needs of their tenants. The ordinance was not intended as a <br />punishment for community landlords, but was targeted at the few problems that exist. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner asked Ms. Miller to consider Ms. Nathanson's points when determining how to phase in the <br />program, as he suspected Ms. Miller was correct about the situation with single-family rental houses. He <br />supported the motion and reiterated his interest in an examination of the FTE question. He agreed that <br />temporary staffing should be examined. <br /> <br />Speaking to the concerns voiced by Ms. Nathanson, Ms. Bettman recalled that the second phase of the <br />program was to be accomplished within six months of the first phase. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman suggested the ordinance would ;;raise the threshold" for the community and eliminate <br />substandard housing that lacked adequate heat and plumbing over the long term. <br /> <br /> The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council August 11, 2004 Page 4 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />