HomeMy WebLinkAboutCCMinutes - 11/22/04 WS MINUTES
Eugene City Council
Work Session
McNutt Room--Eugene City Hall
November 22, 2004
5:30 p.m.
COUNCILORS PRESENT: Bonny Bettman, George Poling, Nancy Nathanson, Scott Meisner, David
Kelly, Betty Taylor, Gary Pap~, Jennifer Solomon.
Mayor James D. Torrey called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order.
A. ITEMS FROM THE MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL, AND CITY MANAGER
Mr. Poling congratulated the City of Springfield on being chosen as the location of Royal Caribbean Cruise
Lines' new call center and acknowledged the efforts of Eugene officials and City staff whose work on the
project also contributed to the successful outcome. He expressed his appreciation to outgoing councilors
Nathanson and Meisner for their assistance to him over the past two years and thanked outgoing Mayor
Torrey for his help and guidance, as well as his many contributions to the community. He wished them all
well in their future endeavors.
Mr. Pap6 reported that he had recently attended the United States Green Building Council's annual
conference in Portland and encouraged councilors to participate in the next conference in Atlanta, Georgia.
He described some of the workshops that related to development appropriate to LEED (Leadership in
Energy and Environmental Design) standards and said the LEED program would be expanded beyond
buildings to encompass certifications of parks, subdivisions, and communities.
Ms. Taylor requested copies of any information, particularly about land use issues or projects, that was
distributed to neighborhood associations and leaders in her ward. She expressed concern that context-
sensitive design for streets such as Crest Drive and Storey Boulevard would be done by administrative order
and the council would not be involved. She requested that those actions come before the council.
Mr. Kelly said that the Arterial/Collector Street Plan allowed future revisions to design standards to be done
administratively. He said that given the level of public interest and input on that topic it would be useful to
bring it to the council for discussion, even if ultimately it was adopted administratively.
Mr. Meisner requested a memorandum from staff on the status of the Oregon Research Institute (ORI)
project and when the City could expect to recover its investment.
Mr. Pap6 said he would submit questions on the ORI project that he wanted answered in the staff memoran-
dum.
Mayor Torrey related that he attended an event to benefit the arts at the Fifth Street Public Market during
which he was asked why the City did not change the name of 5th Avenue to 5th Street and 8th Avenue to 8th
Street. He asked City Manager Dennis Taylor to research the implications of calling the streets 5th Street
MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 22, 2004 Page 1
Work Session
Avenue and 8th Street Avenue inside the downtown area.
Ms. Solomon arrived at 5:40 p.m.
B. WORK SESSION: Community Safety Building Next Steps
City Manager Taylor introduced the item and stated that his primary recommendation to the council would
be to take action that would move the process forward; the most logical next step would be to make funds
that had been set aside available to the larger project of replacing City Hall and addressing the need for a
new police facility. He also recommended going forward with a master plan to provide clarity. He asked
Assistant City Manager Jim Carlson to review the recommendations and options before the council.
Mr. Carlson observed that the downtown space planning effort and replacement of City Hall had been a
topic high on the council's priority list since prior to 2000. He said that concerns about the seismic
vulnerability of City Hall had resulted in relocation of the most vulnerable public safety services, including
the 911 Call Center and dispatch for fire and police, to a new facility at 2nd Avenue and Chambers Street,
financed through internal funds. He said a successful bond measure in 2002 supported construction of a
new fire station at 13th Avenue and Willamette Street and internal resources were used for a new facility for
property control and forensic evidence units on Garfield Street. The next steps in the downtown space plan
were to move remaining police functions from City Hall into a new facility and build a new City Hall to
consolidate all of the City's downtown functions, which were currently distributed among several locations.
He noted that the ballot measure to add features to a police building that the City already had the resources
to build had been defeated in the November 2004 election.
Mr. Carlson reviewed the financing plan to pay for a new police facility entirely with internal resources and
noted that two, new one-time resources were available: the Qwest back payment of the two percent
Telecommunications Tax and the Qwest deferred payment for franchise fees. He referred to a memorandum
from legal counsel that addressed the status of the litigation that resulted in the one-time payments. He said
that moving the Telecommunications Tax and right-of-way fees into the Facility Reserve would result in
$23.3 million by the end of the year and $28.3 million by the end of fiscal year (FY) 2008, which was the
amount required to build the basic police facility. He said that other resources available for the next phase
of the civic center plan, replacement of City Hall, included ongoing allocation of approximately $1 million
annually from facility charges, sale of assets in the downtown area, and opportunities to identify other one-
time resources such as allocation of marginal beginning working capital.
Addressing the issue of locating a police station on 8th Avenue, Mr. Carlson said that staff believed that
policing was a civic function, represented the largest use of General Fund money in the City, and was
already located on 8th Avenue along with the Lane County Sheriff and all of the courts. He advocated for
two separate buildings for police and City Hall because of the different seismic standards applicable to
public safety functions, which also precluded using the existing City Hall for a police facility. Referring to
the issue of replacement versus remodeling of City Hall, he said that based on previous actions by the
council, a conscious choice was made to not make major investments in the current building. He said that
once the new fire station was completed and those functions moved from City Hall, the vacated space in the
basement would not be used for other employees because of its seismic vulnerability. He concluded by
reviewing the options set forth in the agenda information summary.
Mayor Torrey called for council comments and questions.
MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 22, 2004 Page 2
Work Session
Mr. Pap~ agreed with Mr. Carlson that no funds should be invested in the current City Hall beyond the need
to keep it serviceable until a replacement was built. He commended the City for systematically saving for a
new police station and City Hall but said efforts to educate the public and obtain support for the projects
had not been successful. He said that Public Works had done a good job of gaining public support for $90
million to maintain and preserve roads. He said the public could question why the one-time payments from
Qwest, as well as other funds in the Facility Reserve, were not being applied to roads. Mr. Carlson agreed
that most of the Facility Reserve funds had been or could be General Funds. He said the council would need
to make some difficult choices about whether to use those funds for new facilities or roads.
Ms. Taylor concurred with Mr. Papd's comments. She pointed out that the overwhelming majority of voters
had said no to the bond measure to partially fund the civic center vision project. She said that given the
urgent need for road repairs, the wise action would be to transfer the Facility Reserve funds to the road fund
and then discuss how and when to build a new police facility with the involvement of the public.
Ms. Nathanson said the need for a new police facility was longstanding and should not be put off. She said
that those people who had discussed the bond measure with her had said no to the extras like downtown
design improvements and beautification. She did not think it was right to leave public safety in a vulnerable
position if providing for public safety was the most important thing to be done for the community and the
highest priority. She said waiting another five or six years for completion of another planning process was
too long. She said the funds were available and while public information and discussion had not been
adequate to gain public support, perhaps the council had not demonstrated sufficient commitment to public
safety and building a new police facility. She encouraged the council to move ahead to both complete the
master plan and begin planning for using savings to build the needed facility; incremental implementation of
projects was a better approach than waiting several years to ask the voters for funds to achieve the entire
civic vision.
Ms. Bettman disagreed with the suggestion to take internal funds saved for replacement of capital facilities
to pay for road improvements; the council was equally responsible for both. She said her position remained
unchanged: the City had an obligation to replace City Hall and the police station and should make planning
responsibly for those new facilities its highest priority. She said that co-locating police and City Hall
functions should be investigated, but it was preferable to build two facilities on the same site. She said that
the project should be simple and not mix the civic vision with replacement of a major City facility and if
done in two years would allow for additional savings to offset the eventual cost of the project. She
commented that the estimated cost of a new facility seemed high compared to similar facilities in other
communities.
Mr. Meisner remarked that the council and the City had ignored building reserve issues for many decades
and consequently had not saved for building replacement prior to 2000. He expressed concern that if the
building reserve funds were not ~%cked down" they would be used for other purposes. He noted that some
police functions were housed at the Lincoln Street location and asked if they could be moved back into the
space to be vacated at City Hall once the new fire station was completed as much of their space need was
for equipment and vehicle storage. He said that would also free the Lincoln Street property for sale.
Facility Management Division Manager Glen Svendsen replied that was possible, although the council had
indicated in an earlier work session that it did not want to pursue that option.
Mr. Meisner said he was suggesting the move as an interim measure. With respect to the sale and
acquisition of property, he said the City had a practice of %elling low, buying high" and urged a change.
Mr. Kelly agreed with Ms. Bettman's comments about the council's responsibility for both facilities and
MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 22, 2004 Page 3
Work Session
roads. In contrast to the feedback Ms. Nathanson had heard, he said that he had received two dozen
comments and none of them referred to extras; they identified a number of issues related to the police facility
as the reason for voting against the measure. He stated that the needs for a police facility and City offices
downtown still existed and he was in favor of setting the funds aside for a full City Hall project down
payment. He noted that the City Manager's recommendation in the amended agenda document included only
Option 2 and Option 5 had been dropped; he was in favor of the combination of both options to lock down
the funds and proceed with the master planning process for the full facility and including a public involve-
ment component. He pointed out that while there were two separate buildings involved, it should be referred
to as one project, possibly with multiple steps.
Mr. Poling agreed with Ms. Bettman that Facility Reserve funds should not be moved to the Road
Fund. He expressed concern with the funds being used for other purposes and supported the combination of
options 2 and 5. He said the new seismic standards applicable to public safety functions would make it
difficult to relocate police functions anywhere except to a new building but he was not certain that the
available funds were sufficient for the entire cost of a new facility. He encouraged the council to continue
moving forward on the issue.
Ms. Solomon concurred with previous comments that the Facility Reserve funds should be preserved for
new buildings. She indicated her support for a new police facility and disagreed with Mr. Kelly's suggestion
that the police facility and new City Hall be referred to as one project. She wanted the new police facility
project to succeed and was concerned that if it was coupled with a new City Hall it would not.
Ms. Bettman moved, seconded by Mr. Poling, to direct the City Manager to trans-
fer $10.2 million of Telecommunications Tax revenues from the Telecommunica-
tions Fund and $5.2 million of previously deferred right-of-way fees from the Gen-
eral Fund to the Facility Reserve on Supplemental Budget # 1 on December 6,
2004.
Mr. Pap~ said he was not suggesting that the Facility Reserve funds be used for roads, but it was clear that
there was a public relations issue to be addressed when the City was asking voters for $90 million for road
improvements and yet had saved $28 million for facilities. He said it was important to do a better job of
informing the community of the council's priorities.
Ms. Bettman clarified that seismic problems with City Hall affected everyone who used the facility and there
was an opportunity to plan for the replacement of the building. She said the Road Fund included dedicated
funds from other revenue sources but that was a separate subject. Speaking to the motion, she said she had
no objections to earmarking the funds for future facility replacement, but was not willing to authorize
$750,000 for a master planning process because it would take consensus and support from the council and
the community to move forward with a major reinvestment in City facilities and that effort should start with
the new council. She preferred to focus on replacing City Hall and a police facility instead of civic
visioning.
Mr. Meisner said he supported the motion and preferred to see Option 5 as a separate motion because he had
a number of questions regarding it. He asked about the status of negotiations with the federal government
on use of the Federal Building following removal of the courts and some other functions from that building.
Mr. Carlson said that the official statement was that the building space would continue to be used for federal
offices, although the courtroom space may be able to be used for City courts on an interim basis.
Mr. Meisner urged the City to remain active in those discussions.
MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 22, 2004 Page 4
Work Session
Ms. Taylor said that given the desperate need for road maintenance funds it was ridiculous not to use the
funds for that purpose. She said if the council waited and demonstrated the need for a new police station the
voters would support it. She asked if there was an estimate of the cost of a seismic retrofit to City Hall.
Mr. Carlson said that seismic analyses had indicated the cost of a retrofit was at least as much as new
construction and would still not address the inefficient space and layout of the building.
Ms. Taylor asked to see the specific figures and stated she would not support the motion.
Mr. Kelly said he would support the motion but not the addition of Option 5. He agreed it was important to
move the process forward by looking at the overall facilities needs. He liked aspects of Option 5 that
addressed public input and co-location with partner agencies but was reluctant to appropriate $750,000 on
the basis of a single paragraph summary. He asked if the City Manager required an amendment to the
motion in order to elaborate on the scope of work associated with Option 5 and bring that back to the
council in January 2005. City Manager Taylor said his recommendation was to pass the motion currently
before the council and make a separate motion for Option 5, then postpone action on it until the first work
session in January 2005 in order to maintain momentum and allow staff the opportunity to develop a more
detailed scope of work for action by the new council.
Mr. Kelly said he would move to direct the City Manager to bring back to the council an expanded scope of
work on master planning for development of a new City Hall and Community Safety Building.
Ms. Nathanson said the discussion reminded her of why she was impatient to move the process along; the
council had been talking about City Hall, civic needs, a police station, and downtown fire station for many
years. She said that people in the community appreciated the fact that City government set money aside and
determined how to spend it wisely instead of asking voters for money on every project. She said the funds
had been set aside for a police building and all of the questions discussed at length. She would support the
motion and another motion that would initiate the planning process to keep the work going.
Ms. Bettman said that a study provided as part of the Hazard Mitigation Plan estimated the cost to retrofit
for minimum seismic standards at $9 per square foot. She said that seismic standards were not the only type
of update City Hall needed and retrofitting was not a viable financial option. She supported the motion and
would support Mr. Kelly's suggested motion to bring back an expanded scope of work for master planning
without specifying an amount of money. She pointed out that Option 5 addressed co-location not of City
Hall and police service but of County buildings. She said that a recent study indicated that co-location of
county and city services in larger cities was not an efficient use; that only worked with very small communi-
ties.
Mr. Pap~ agreed with Ms. Nathanson's comments that the council needed to move forward and he hoped the
council would be able to convince voters of the urgency of the need. He asked what type of public relations
would be done to convince voters of the need for a new City Hill and police building like they were
convinced of the need for repairing and upgrading streets. City Manager Taylor noted that the ballot
measure had an undervote of 16,000-17,000 and it was clear that the City needed to do a better job of
communicating with the public on large facility improvements.
The motion passed, 7:1; Ms. Taylor voting in opposition.
Mr. Kelly moved, seconded by Mr. Pap~, to extend the discussion by five minutes.
The motion passed unanimously.
MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 22, 2004 Page 5
Work Session
Mr. Kelly moved, seconded by Ms. Bettman, to direct the City Manager to bring
ideas to the City Council in January 2005 for a scope of work for planning the de-
velopment of a city government complex.
Mr. Meisner said he would support the motion and asked staff to identify in detail the costs associated with
a master planning effort.
Mr. Kelly observed that the success of the project would depend on public collaboration, not public
relations.
Mr. Pap~ accepted Mr. Kelly's point and suggested to the City Manager that the scoping include a public
collaboration plan.
The motion passed 7:1; Ms. Taylor voting in opposition.
C. ACTION: An Ordinance Concerning Rental Housing; Adding Sections 8.400 Through 8.440
and Section 8.995 to the Eugene Code, 1971; and Providing for a Delayed Enforcement Date
Ms. Bettman moved, seconded by Mr. Poling, that the City Council adopt Council
Bill 4881, an ordinance concerning rental housing.
City Manager Taylor asked that the measure be adopted and introduced Marsha Miller, Building and Permit
Services Division manager, to address any questions regarding the motion and suggested amendments.
Mr. Meisner said he would support the motion and would likely support some of the amendments to be
offered, including a sunset provision, but was discouraged at what appeared to be creation of a program
without providing a service. He expressed concern with over-staffing and a phased approach that began
with new multi-family units instead of converted single-family homes that represented the biggest problem.
He asked staff to consider the program an opportunity to provide a service that had been identified as a need.
He said that in his experience many of the problem dwellings fell under the exemption in Section 8.410(2)(d)
~Occupancy of a dwelling by its owner, including one where a portion of the dwelling is rented to another
person for occupancy." He asked why that exemption was granted. Ms. Miller said the exemption was
modeled on the City of Corvallis' ordinance that exempted any properties that were owner-occupied. She
said that the phasing aspect referred more directly to creating the rental properties database and assessing
the fees; as soon as the program is established it will respond to single-family dwelling complaints.
Mr. Poling moved, seconded by Ms. Nathanson, to amend the Ordinance by adding
a new Section 5 and amending the caption, to provide as follows:
;;AN ORDINANCE CONCERNING RENTAL HOUSING; ADDING
SECTIONS 8.400 THROUGH 8.440, AND SECTION 8.995 TO THE EUGENE
CODE, 1971; AND PROVIDING A DELAYED ENFORCEMENT DATE AND
SUNSET PROVISION.
%ection 5. Unless otherwise extended by action of the City Council, this Or-
dinance and the provisions of Sections 8.400 through 8.440, and Section 8.995 of
the Eugene Code, 1971 added herein are repealed effective midnight, December 31,
MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 22, 2004 Page 6
Work Session
2008. Notwithstanding the prior sentence, any enforcement actions commenced to
enforce those provisions prior to December 31, 2008 may continue to be pursued,
and the provisions related to such enforcement actions shall remain in effect with
respect to those actions. In addition, any fees owed to the City under the provisions
related to those fees and their collection shall remain in effect with respect to those
fees."
Mr. Poling emphasized the need to review the program at a specific time to determine if it was functioning
correctly or requirement changes.
Mr. Papd moved to amend the sunset date to December 31, 2007. The motion died
for lack of a second.
Mr. Kelly said that the actions of future councils could be the equivalent of a sunset provision; however,
given concerns about the long-term effect of the program in some segments of the community he would
support a sunset. He said the length of the sunset provision provided adequate time for program operations
to accumulate data upon which to base an evaluation.
Ms. Nathanson said she would support the amendment; the council had frequently used mandatory reviews
or sunset provisions with new programs and it was a responsible approach.
Ms. Bettman said the motion was responsive to comments from the industry and councilors. She asked staff
to provide reports and evaluation data in advance of the sunset date, such as September 2008, to allow the
council adequate time for review.
Ms. Taylor said she preferred a mandatory review to a sunset provision, which suggested that the program
would be ended at that point.
Ms. Taylor moved to change the words %unset provision" to ~mandatory review."
The motion died for lack of a second.
The motion to amend the ordinance by adding a new Section 5 passed, 7:1; Ms.
Taylor voting in opposition.
Mr. Poling moved, seconded by Ms. Bettman, to amend Section 8.430(4) as set
forth in Section 1 of the ordinance, by adding a final sentence thereto, to provide as
follows:
~The City shall notify the owner or owner's agent not less than 24 hours prior to a
scheduled inspection of the premises in order to afford the owner or landlord the
opportunity to be present during the inspection."
Ms. Nathanson commented that it was important to provide notification but the amendment was problem-
atic; if staff waited until 48 hours to contact the owner and was not able to, then the inspection could not be
scheduled and the tenant could not obtain a remedy. She said that seven days seemed too long and many
people preferred contact by phone or email to a written notice. Ms. Miller said the intent was to give the
owner an opportunity to be present for the inspection, but whatever notice was required did not mean that an
inspection would not proceed.
MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 22, 2004 Page 7
Work Session
Mr. Kelly expressed concern with the original notice of seven days and asked if the new wording would be
satisfied by leaving a voicemail message for the owner and if the owner was unavailable, the inspection
would still go forward. Ms. Miller agreed that the inspection could proceed.
City Attorney Glenn Klein said that eliminating the word "written" would allow for any method of
notification, including voicemail, fax, or email.
Mr. Papd used the example of an owner being out of state and asked if there was a way to require 24-hour
actual notice if receipt was confirmed or five days' written notice. Mr. Klein said he could provide draft
language but his understanding of Mr. Poling's intent was the removal of the additional days from the notice
period. He suggested a straw vote to determine if there was interest in Mr. Papd's suggestion.
Mayor Torrey called for a show of hands and determined there was not support for Mr. Papd's change to the
notice provision.
Mr. Papd stated his concern with the shortened notice period and reiterated his preference for actual notice
that confirmed receipt by the owner.
Mr. Papd moved to change the notice requirement from 24 to 48 hours. The motion
died for lack of a second.
Mr. Kelly pointed out that the notice provision only went into effect if the landlord, owner, or owner's agent
had previously been notified of the problem and given ten days to correct it.
The motion to amend the ordinance by adding a final sentence to Section 8.430(4)
passed unanimously.
Mr. Poling moved, seconded by Ms. Bettman, to amend Section 8.430(5)(a)4 as set
forth in Section 1 of the Ordinance, to provide as follows:
"4. A deadline for completing repairs often days, unless the city manager deter-
mines that the necessary repairs cannot be completed within the ten-day period. If
the city manager makes such a determination, the owner or owner's agent shall
submit a compliance schedule acceptable to the city within ten days."
Mr. Poling said the addition of wording regarding the deadline for completing repairs provided some
flexibility for instances when circumstances beyond an owner's control prevented repairs within the ten day
period.
Mr. Kelly thanked staff for offering the revised language, which struck a balance between language that was
too restrictive or too open-ended; it established an expectation often days and allowed flexibility under
unusual circumstances as determined by the City Manager.
Ms. Solomon asked what would happen if the repairs required the landlord to obtain a permit that could take
longer than ten days to obtain. Ms. Miller said that the language would allow a reasonable compliance
schedule to be established that would accommodate the need for a permit.
The motion to amend Section 8.430(5)(a)4 of the ordinance passed unanimously.
MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 22, 2004 Page 8
Work Session
Speaking to the amended main motion, Ms. Nathanson expressed concern with the scope and cost of the
program. She said the council was interested in an enforcement program, not an information program. She
pointed out that the Corvallis program had become primarily an information and help program and could be
done for less than Eugene's estimated cost. She wished the program cost less and was mostly concerned
with enforcement, but would support the motion.
Ms. Bettman moved, seconded by Mr. Kelly, to amend Section 8.440(3) as set forth
in Section 1 of the Ordinance, to provide as follows:
~(3) The following unit types, while subject to the standards, enforcement proce-
dures, and other requirements established in sections 8.400 through 8.440 of this
code, shall be exempt from the fee payment requirements:
(a) Rentals with a recorded deed restriction requiring the units to be rented
affordably to households at or below 60 percent of the Area Median
income;
(b) Rentals that have been approved by the city for an exemption from
property taxes pursuant to sections 2.910 to 2.922 and 2.937 to 2.940
of this code or that are recognized by the city as exempt from property
taxes pursuant to ORS 307.092."
Ms. Bettman said she understood the language would exempt units that were already publicly subsidized and
already had an oversight function from a public body in terms of habitability. Ms. Miller agreed that the
language applied to affordable housing units.
Ms. Taylor asked why the rentals under part b of the amendment to Section 8.440(3) were exempt from
fees. Ms. Miller said that the rentals were exempt from fees because they met certain affordability standards
by being exempt from property taxes according to the cited sections of the Eugene Code.
The motion to amend Section 8.440(3) of the ordinance passed unanimously.
Ms. Solomon, speaking to the main motion as amended, said she voted for the amendments because they
made the program a better product, but was not convinced that the product was good for Eugene. She
appreciated the high energy and coordinated campaign conducted by advocates for the program; however,
she still believed that the program was a solution without a problem that was backed up by statistical data.
She expressed concern about the cost of the program and the fact that multi-family housing units would be
the first phase when problems were most likely concentrated in single-family houses. She said that
education would be a better response to the issue and landlords could be required to include educational
materials in rental agreements. She said that the best use of City resources was to strengthen State law and
her fundamental core belief was that government should not be grown and the program was growing
government; she would vote against the motion.
Mr. Kelly commented that if growing government was to improve the chances that renters in Eugene would
have plumbing that worked, roofs that did not leak, and heating, that was one of the best reasons to grow
government. He had some minor concerns with details of program implementation but thought the program
was a positive step to assure the 50 percent of the population who were renters were treated fairly in rental
housing. He said he would support the motion and thanked everyone involved in bringing the program to
fruition. He noted that although the database will be built initially from multi-family rather than single-
family housing, on the first day of the program the City will be able to take and process complaints
regarding single-family dwellings.
MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 22, 2004 Page 9
Work Session
Mr. Papd asked if fines from the program would go back into the program. Ms. Miller said that account
codes would be established for all of the program's expenses and revenues, including fines, so that they
could be tracked even though they were in the General Fund.
Mr. Pap6 asked if the fines coming in were restricted to program use. Ms. Miller said they were not.
Mr. Pap6 moved, seconded by Ms. Bettman, to establish a fund to dedicate the
fines from the program to the program.
Mr. Kelly raised a point of order that the motion was not a properly phrased amendment to the ordinance
and should be a stand alone motion.
Mr. Klein said that he would need to draft language to amend the code and would have to consult with
Finance staff to determine how to establish a dedicated fund.
Mr. Pap~ withdrew his motion.
Mr. Pap~ moved, seconded by Ms. Solomon, to amend Section 8.430(3) as set forth
in Section 1 of the ordinance, by adding a new subparagraph (e) thereto, to provide
as follows:
~(e) For purposes of determining whether a complaint is valid, the city manager
shall consider whether the violation of the standard in Section 8.425 was the result
of damage caused by the tenant."
Mr. Pap~ asked how the City Manager would interpret that provision and whether the claim would be
withdrawn if it was determined the tenant was responsible. City Manager Taylor replied that the provision
required him to consider whether the violation was the result of tenant damage. Ms. Miller added that she
had discussed the issue with the cities of Corvallis and Portland because the concern was raised during the
public hearing. She said Corvallis indicated it had not experienced tenant-caused damage as a problem for
habitability standards, which were the subject of the proposed ordinance. She said Portland indicated that
regardless of how the damages were caused, it was still ultimately the owner's responsibility to correct those
problems and then resolve the issue with the tenant.
Mr. Pap~ asked if the ordinance would prevent the landlord from evicting a tenant because of damage like a
broken window and requiring the tenant to repair the damage. City Manager Taylor said the issue for him
would be the habitability deficit caused by tenant behavior and what was done to remedy it. He said that
there were actions a landlord could take against a tenant causing the damage and it could affect the time
limits or other aspects of the ordinance, but the basic habitability deficit was considered the primary basis
for adjudicating the claim.
Mr. Pap~ posed the scenario in which a tenant causes his or her own problem, does not fix it, the program
forces the landlord to do the required repairs, and then the tenant leaves without paying back the landlord.
City Manager Taylor said that would be an issue for the landlord and legal counsel; the underlying issue of
the housing standard code was the habitability of the rental property.
Mr. Pap~ reiterated that tenants should not benefit from their own ill-caused actions and without such a
provision, they could.
MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 22, 2004 Page 10
Work Session
Mr. Kelly said that when the issue of tenant-caused problems was first raised he thought it had some merit,
but he was not comfortable with the phrasing of the amendment and could not now see how there was a
benefit to the tenant as a landlord would only be restoring the unit to its prior condition, not improving it.
He said that some tenant damage could constitute a criminal act and there was likely civil recourse available
to the landlord; Corvallis had not reported any problems related to tenant damage. He said the language was
too ~fuzzy" to be included in the code and he could not support the amendment. He pointed out that many
units had multiple tenants and if one tenant caused the damage, then the others were faced with a habitability
issue.
Ms. Bettman said she could not support the amendment as it appeared to put the City in the position of
determining criminal culpability and the landlord had other remedies available.
The motion to amend Section 8.430(3) of the ordinance failed, 7:1; Mr. Pap~ voting
in favor.
Mr. Pap~ said that he was concerned about the cost of the program, as were other councilors, and he had not
seen a satisfactory response.
Mr. Pap~ moved to Section 8.440(2) to read: ~For the purpose of offsetting the
costs to the City associated with the enforcement of this code, the City Manager,
using the process contained in Section 2.020 of this code, shall set an annual fee for
each dwelling unit covered by a rental agreement. Such fee shall not be more than
five dollars per unit through December 31, 2006." The motion died for lack of a
second.
Speaking to the main motion as amended, Mr. Meisner said he had asked about the anti-retaliation
provisions of State law. He said that housing advocate John Van Landingham confirmed that State law
protected against retaliation on the basis of complaint by any local government.
Mr. Meisner moved, seconded by Mr. Pap~, to strike Section 8.410(2)(d) that ex-
cluded from coverage a single-family home or structure occupied by renters as well
as its owner.
Mr. Meisner said he first thought that such an exemption should be retained, but realized that an owner was
not going to file a complaint against him or herself.
Mr. Kelly agreed with Mr. Meisner's point and asked if staff had any concerns. Ms. Miller said she did not
object to striking the provision.
The motion to amend Section 8.410(2) passed unanimously.
Speaking to the main motion as amended, Ms. Bettman said one of the reasons that only anecdotal
information was available was the lack of databases and the program would provide substantial data once it
was in effect and the issues could be evaluated. She said she had seen the issue from both perspectives and
was pleased that a locally enforceable mechanism was being created for minimum habitability standards that
would provide a local remedy for the worst cases. On the issue of fees, she said those would be established
administratively and the council would have an opportunity to respond or ask for a work session if there
were concerns. She said that there already existed in the community databases to create an inventory and
MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 22, 2004 Page 11
Work Session
entities were willing to provide the information to the City inexpensively and that could be reflected in
program fees. She suggested that the City Manager could be directed to pursue those options. City
Manager Taylor expressed his willingness to explore those options.
Ms. Taylor said she enthusiastically supported the program and it was a good step in the right direction.
She thanked the students who initiated the campaign for a program and Mr. Van Landingham for contribut-
ing his knowledge and support to the project.
Mr. Papd commended all those who came forward to either support or change the program. He said the
lobbying efforts related to the program represented a good example of community and government work.
He said he would support the program, although he had concerns about placing no limits on the growth of
government; he preferred a program that was contracted to an outside entity for implementation. He also
expressed concern that tenants would not be required to suffer the consequences of their own acts.
Ms. Nathanson thanked Mr. Papd for his motion regarding the cost of the program. She said she could not
support it because she was not certain it was the correct amount and did not want to attach that level of
administrative detail to establishing a new ordinance. She acknowledged the efforts of students at the
University of Oregon and Lane Community College who worked to establish the program, although the
program was not only about student housing; it would benefit the entire community. She hoped that future
student leaders would continue the tradition of community involvement.
The main motion as amended passed, 7:1; Ms. Solomon voting in opposition.
Mayor Torrey recognized Associated Students of the University of Oregon (ASUO) president Adam Pitkin
for his leadership and dedication to the campaign for a housing standards program.
Mr. Pap6 moved, seconded by Mr. Poling, to direct the City Manager to bring back
to the council a proposed ordinance to ensure that the fines from the rental housing
program go back to the rental housing program.
Mr. Kelly asked if the action was required to be an ordinance and if not, would a friendly amendment be
accepted to direct the City Manager to return with a proposal. Mr. Klein said it did not need to be an
ordinance.
Mr. Pap6 and Mr. Poling accepted Mr. Kelly's friendly amendment.
City Manager Taylor clarified that the proposal would be to ensure that the fines from the program were
used to offset the cost of administering the new ordinance. He expressed some concern about a dedicated
fund and said if the council wanted full accounting of the costs and revenues that could be done in other
ways.
Mr. Papd said that discussion could be held at the work session on the proposal.
Mr. Kelly said he would support the motion in the interests of having language to consider but noted that the
full accounting guaranteed that the actual expenses of the program would be closely examined. He expected
that fees would be lowered in future years if the program accumulated a surplus. He pointed out that the
motion did not specify a dedicated fund.
Ms. Bettman said she would support the motion as it was difficult to track funds once they were absorbed
MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 22, 2004 Page 12
Work Session
into the General Fund.
Ms. Nathanson said she generally liked the idea of using the funds in some relationship to the purpose. She
hoped the new council would examine the proposal and consider that the language ~to offset the cost of the
program" might be too narrow because of fluctuations in that type of revenue. She said the council might
prefer the flexibility to use funds to support related activities.
Ms. Taylor said she would support discussion of the proposal.
Mr. Pap6 commented that because the program was established for a particular purpose and the revenue
could be isolated it needed to be held accountable and all revenues used to support the program and no
others.
Mr. Meisner stated he would support the motion and the new council should look carefully at program
revenues and how they were expended.
The motion passed unanimously.
Mayor Torrey adjourned the meeting at 7:25 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Dennis M. Taylor
City Manager
(Recorded by Lynn Taylor)
MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 22, 2004 Page 13
Work Session