Laserfiche WebLink
Mayor Torrey thanked the students from the University of Oregon who took on the challenge of bringing the <br />issue before the council. He cautioned them that their work was not over. <br /> <br />Mayor Torrey agreed with Mr. Meisner's remarks about staffing, saying it was easy to upsize but not to <br />downsize. He thought Ms. Taylor's points about temporary staffing were well-taken. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor did not support an ordinance sunset, saying a sunset was different from a council evaluation. <br />She supported the current phasing plan and pointed out it would take more time to identify single-family <br />rental housing stock. She hoped the University of Oregon students who raised the need for the ordinance <br />found another worthy cause. <br /> <br />Mr. Pap6 joined in the appreciation expressed to the students and staff. He thought a sunset provision <br />would trigger a sufficient level of staff review. <br /> <br />Mr. Pap6 opposed the $10 per unit fee proposal, preferring to have a lower fee initially. He concurred with <br />the remarks of other councilors, saying that two FTE were far more than would be needed when the program <br />was established. He suggested that the City outsource the service as it could be done by an outside firm. He <br />wanted to look at that approach before the City hired new staff. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson suggested that the City also pursue changes in the State Landlord-Tenant Law. She asked <br />the City Manager to inform the council of the process for prioritizing the issue for lobbying in the next State <br />legislative session. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson asked Ms. Miller to discuss a staff statement in the Agenda Item Summary that many <br />qualified families overpaying for housing would not benefit from an exemption to the ordinance. Ms. Miller <br />said that the issue was raised at the HPB meeting. Members expressed concern that there were people <br />eligible to be in low-income housing who overpaid for housing now because of a lack of affordable low- <br />income housing units. If those units were exempted, that did not benefit those families. Ms. Nathanson <br />clarified that the statement was less about the exemption than about the housing stock. Ms. Miller <br />concurred. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly noted the Coalition for Eugene Housing Standards included other organizations than the <br />University students, such as Centro LatinoAmericano. He thanked all those organizations. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly discussed the problems created by the illegal conversion of housing, such as single-family houses <br />converted to multi-unit housing. The housing in question may be poorly built, and its systems not designed <br />to handle multiple units. He asked if there was a way to identify such housing. Noting that staff had <br />discussed the issue with University students, Ms. Miller said one of the results of having such a program <br />was that it was likely the City would be called on to investigate situations where a unit was found to be not <br />only substandard but illegal as well. She thought the City would encounter many such units, particularly in <br />the University area. Mr. Taylor suggested that collection of that data would inform future council decisions <br />regarding the scale and pricing of the service. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner said the City was exempting owner-occupied homes from the ordinance, but many marginally <br />legal or illegally converted units involved owner-occupied homes. He cited room rentals as an example. He <br />said staff would need to be very careful in its approach. He said the new State law requiring proof of <br />permits on sale of a property may help in the long-term. <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council August 11, 2004 Page 5 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />