Item 2A: Approval of City Council Minutes

Home Browse Search

they would eventually close. He added that it also only applied to special category tenants defined as tenants who were 70 years old and older, disabled, or low income. Mr. Weinman stated that no one anticipated at that time that the parks in residential areas would be closed, but at present the properties are becoming very valuable for redevelopment. He said, as a result, people who own manufactured homes were concerned because there were not enough spaces to move the homes to. He averred that the ordinance that was recommended for consideration represented a compromise between the different interests on the committee. He explained that it would protect some of the homeowners and provide them some compensation from the property owner should the park close, but it also recognized that the property owners had the right to sell the property. He summarized the recommended changes to the existing ordinance: ? All parks in the community containing four or more spaces would be covered by the ordinance; ? All home-owning residents in the parks would be covered; ? The park owner must hire a housing counselor to assist residents in moving and relocation; ? Residents are entitled to compensation for their losses – if the home could be moved residents land- lords provide moving costs according to a schedule and, if the home could not be moved, the land- lord the homeowner could either receive payment equal to real market value plus a flat amount for moving based on the federal relocation compensation schedule. Mr. Weinman noted that the owner could subtract any state subsidy from the payment to the tenant and the resident would not get full value for their asset. He said the owner might get System Development Charge (SDC) credits if applicable. Mr. Weinman related that the State was “hotly debating” bills that would provide statewide protections. He said the big sticking point at this juncture was the preemption clause, which would prevent local jurisdic- tions from passing their own ordinances. He stated that a bill had passed out of committee with a compromise that included a provision that a local jurisdiction would have six months to prepare and pass an ordinance before the law would go into effect. Ms. Solomon declared that the committee process had been respectful, with very different opinions at the table, and that it had truly resulted in a compromise. Ms. Bettman expressed appreciation for the work that had gone into the recommendations. She asked how many parks contained less than five spaces. Mr. Weinman replied that he was uncertain whether the information was available given that they were not classified by the State as a manufactured home park. Ms. Jennings noted there were four parks in the City of Eugene that had four spaces. Ms. Bettman surmised that 16 people would be affected by a park closure with no recourse. She said it seemed there was no provision for residents to weigh in on the decision-making leading up to a park closure. Mr. Weinman responded that there was a state law that governed this and under that law the owner had a choice between giving a 180-day notice or a 365-day notice to park tenants. Ms. Bettman asserted that park residents would not have the opportunity to weigh in on the land use issues surrounding a change in use for the manufactured home park. Mr. Weinman explained that the City did not make a decision for the park owner; the park owner could close the park and the City had no power to say yes or no. MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 11, 2007 Page 4 Work Session