Laserfiche WebLink
information was available given that they were not classified by the State as a manufactured home park. <br />Ms. Jennings noted there were four parks in the City of Eugene that had four spaces. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman surmised that 16 people would be affected by a park closure with no recourse. She said it <br />seemed there was no provision for residents to weigh in on the decision-making leading up to a park closure. <br />Mr. Weinman responded that there was a state law that governed this and under that law the owner had a <br />choice between giving a 180-day notice or a 365-day notice to park tenants. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman asserted that park residents would not have the opportunity to weigh in on the land use issues <br />surrounding a change in use for the manufactured home park. Mr. Weinman explained that the City did not <br />make a decision for the park owner; the park owner could close the park whether the City said yes or no. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman averred that the City issued the permit. Mr. Weinman offered to research it further prior to the <br />public hearing. <br /> <br />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 that for a variety of <br />reasons 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 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 /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 11, 2007 Page 5 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br />