Laserfiche WebLink
Ms. Bettman indicated that she would be looking for ways in which the residents were notified before the <br />decision was made and for ways residents could formally weigh in. She asked why the park owners would <br />receive SDC credits in a situation wherein the owners were converting the land to a “higher use.” Mr. <br />Weinman replied that the owners might not receive SDC credits. He said in the spirit of compromise the <br />members of the committee wanted to find a “four-way compensation package.” He noted that the SDC <br />credits would be decided on a case-by-case basis. <br /> <br />In response to a question from Ms. Bettman, Mr. Lidz clarified that the provision on SDC credits was not <br />currently in the ordinance. Mr. Weinman added that such a credit would only be granted at the time of the <br />building permit. <br /> <br />Mr. Clark asked why the City was facing this issue and why it was in the owner’s interest to sell the land. <br />Mr. Weinman replied that it was not that parks were closing “right and left;” rather, for a variety of reasons <br />the cost of land was going up and at some point people look at redeveloping property. <br /> <br />Mr. Clark asked if there were more park closures statewide than before. Mr. Weinman affirmed there were <br />because park owners were getting paid large amounts of money for their properties. <br /> <br />Mr. Zelenka asked when the last mobile home park had been created in the City of Eugene. Mr. Weinman <br />guessed that it had been 20 years. <br /> <br />In response to a follow-up question from Mr. Zelenka, Mr. Weinman stated that the mobile home park <br />vacancy rate was low. Mr. Zelenka noted that it was often low-income housing. <br /> <br />Mr. Zelenka referred to House Bill (HB) 2735, noting that it declared the payments to mobile home owners <br />to be non-taxable income. He asked if this was a new development or if the existing payments were taxable. <br /> <br />Mr. Zelenka asked for clarification on the provision of SDC credits under some circumstances. Mr. <br />Weinman replied that the committee had struggled with the issue of compensation. He related that there <br />were members of the committee who felt it should not just be the park owners’ responsibility to pay. He <br />explained that owners questioned why they should have to pay compensation just for wanting to sell land <br />that was theirs and the SDC credits were seen as a way to “spread that pain around.” He said this was a <br />way for the local government to participate in the compensation equation. <br /> <br />Ms. Jennings noted, as a point of information, that the Elmira Estates manufactured home park was <br />developed in 1999 and that several others had been developed around 1989 to 1990. <br /> <br />Ms. Solomon confirmed that the committee had wanted “all four entities” to participate in the compensation <br />process. She pointed out that people signed a document when moving into a manufactured home park <br />affirming they knew it was not a permanent space. <br /> <br />Mr. Zelenka noted that the compensation outlined in Section 6 indicated homeowners would receive 100 <br />percent compensation unless their homes were in commercial zones or flood plains, in which case they <br />would receive 50 percent compensation. He did not perceive the ordinance as a conversion program so <br />much as a protection against getting rid of low income housing. He questioned why the latter homeowners <br />should be singled out. Mr. Weinman did not disagree. He said the section, as written, had come from the <br />spirit of the compromise the committee had worked with. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 11, 2007 Page 5 <br /> Work Session <br />