My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Item 3: Ordinance Concerning Manufactured Dwelling Park Closures
COE
>
City of Eugene
>
Council Agendas 2007
>
CC Agenda - 07/09/07 Meeting
>
Item 3: Ordinance Concerning Manufactured Dwelling Park Closures
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/9/2010 12:44:05 PM
Creation date
7/6/2007 8:47:53 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council
City_Council_Document_Type
Agenda Item Summary
CMO_Meeting_Date
7/9/2007
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
16
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
opportunity. In some cases, tenants may wish to collectively purchase the park they live in. However, <br />legal remedies at the state level are needed to facilitate the financing options. Furthermore, there are <br />examples in Oregon and elsewhere where the sale price far exceeded the ability of tenants to purchase <br />the park themselves. <br /> <br />If a park closes, homeowners can be faced with a bleak situation. They may not have any place to move <br />their home to, as new parks are rarely created. Or, tenants may discover that their home can not be <br />moved due to its age or condition. Sometimes these homeowners have been required by their park to <br />invest in expensive “park packages” that include paying for a driveway, a patio, or a carport. If the park <br />closes they may be left with a debt in addition to owning a devalued home. <br /> <br />Two parks have closed under the current ordinance. No existing Eugene parks have indicated any plans <br />to close. However, many tenants are concerned about their future and have followed this issue closely. <br />The Housing Policy Board (HPB) examined this issue and appointed a committee to study the problem <br />and make recommendations. City Councilor Jennifer Solomon chaired the committee. The committee <br />included a park owner, park manager, tenants, and the HPB chair, John Van Landingham. They met <br />eight times during a seven-month period. They listened to public testimony and debated emotionally <br />charged issues. The HPB’s recommendations attempted to acknowledge and balance the rights of <br />property owners and the concerns of tenants. <br /> <br />Response to Questions Raised at the Council Work Session <br />1. Councilor Bettman raised the issue of tenant notification. The ordinance requires that park owners <br /> provide tenants with written notice not less than 365 days before the closure date. A park owner first <br /> gives notice to tenants and the City of his or her intent to close the park. Following notice of intent <br /> to close the park, the owner must apply to the City for a closure permit. The owner must submit the <br /> permit application to the City no sooner than 30 days, and no later than 60 days, after providing the <br /> notice of intent to close. The owner must post a copy of the entire application in a conspicuous place <br /> within the manufactured dwelling park. The City has 30 days to review the application and issue a <br /> report. The owner must also post a copy of the staff report. The City Manager then may issue or <br /> deny the requested permit. If the permit is issued, the park owner must promptly notify each <br /> affected tenant in writing of the decision and the City will notify each property owner within 100 <br /> feet of the decision. The City’s decision may be appealed within 10 days by any person affected by <br /> the decision. <br /> <br />2. Councilor Bettman had questions regarding the possible waiver of System Development Charges <br /> (SDC). During the council’s work session, staff explained the discussion and compromises from the <br /> Housing Policy Board Committee that led to these recommendations. Some on the committee <br /> advocated for the park owner, home owner, state and local jurisdiction (City) to each share in the <br /> financial solution for assisting displaced home owners. Staff reported to the council that the only <br /> identified portion that may actually fall to Eugene was a potential SDC credit that could be <br /> transferred from the old development to the new development. As a clarification, no SDC credits are <br /> included in the draft ordinance or staff recommendations. Rather, this is only an option that is <br /> sometimes available in any redevelopment situation -- where some infrastructure improvements have <br /> already been paid for at the site and therefore, constitute a credit toward those assessed on new <br /> development. <br /> <br />3. Mayor Piercy asked for a comparison of the benefits of the City’s proposed ordinance amendments <br /> and the proposed state legislation. This comparison was provided in a chart attached as Attachment <br />L:\CMO\2007 Council Agendas\M070709\S0707093.doc <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.