Laserfiche WebLink
<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 that <br />affirmed 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 and in that instance 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. <br /> <br />Mr. Weinman did not disagree. He said the section, as written, had come from the spirit of the compromise <br />the committee had worked with. <br /> <br />Mr. Zelenka observed that HB 2735 would give a five-year property tax assessment value freeze on the <br />manufactured home park land after the closure and asked if that was true regardless of what the property <br />owner did with the property. Mr. Weinman affirmed that it was true. <br /> <br />Mayor Piercy asked how the City of Eugene’s proposals differed from the State legislation. Mr. Weinman <br />replied that local recommendations included a housing counselor. He said the State legislation did not allow <br />rent increases during the period after the park owners had announced a park would close. He related that the <br />State legislation had a somewhat different schedule for paying moving costs, but it was not very different <br />from the local ordinance. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman did not believe the SDC credits were included in the ordinance. She surmised that the City <br />Manager would have “broad discretion” to grant those credits. Mr. Lidz responded that there were some <br />state requirements for when those credits should be granted and there were some that were in the SDC <br />methodology. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman asked if the City would have to take formal steps to amend the SDC methodology to allow <br />such credits. She commented that when speaking of “spreading the pain around,” she assumed someone <br />would close their manufactured home park because they believed they would make more money through <br />another land use. She believed this constituted compensation. She asserted that given that an SDC was <br />charged for capacity, any unpaid costs would be transferred onto the remainder of the community. She <br />asked for clarification as to how the “SDC piece” would be implemented and specified that it be given in <br />writing. <br /> <br />In response to a question from Mayor Piercy, Mr. Weinman pointed out that Attachment B contained <br />specific information on the differences and whether the local ordinance was better than what the State <br />legislation would provide for. <br /> <br />Mr. Clark asked whether the House Bill or Senate Bill was more likely to pass. Mr. Weinman replied that <br />the House Bill had passed through committee and was the one with the preemption clause. <br /> <br />City Manager Taylor noted that the item was scheduled for a public hearing on June 18. <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 11, 2007 Page 6 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br />