We are in the home stretch of the 2017 Oregon Legislative Session. The target adjournment date is June 23rd, the constitutional deadline for adjournment is July 10th. The actual date will fall somewhere between the two - most likely in late June. Significant budget, tax, transportation issues still need to be haggled over as the legislative session draws to a close.

Nearly all legislative proposals MHCO has been tracking (mostly opposed) have died in committee.

Click Here or at the top of this article  "MHCO Legislative Update"  for links to bill drafts and the status of all bills actively tracked by MHCO.

Two significant legislative proposals addressing manufactured home communities are on their way to the Governor's desk for signature. Here is a summary of these two bills:

SB 277A - This is the landlord tenant coalition bill that was negotiated over several months and addresses changes to disrepair and deterioration. The bill provides clear definitions of disrepair and deterioration as well as making it clear that cosmetic or aesthetic concerns are not disrepair or deterioration. The 30 day cure period is extended to 60 days. The bill also clarifies the responsibility of new residents who purchase an existing manufactured home in the community for repairs including cosmetic or aesthetic concerns as long as those concerns are included in the community rules and the community owner gives written notice to a prospective purchaser before he or she becomes a new resident.

HB 2008A - this bill caused a great deal of anxiety for community owners when it was introduced in January. The original bill contained nearly every legislative concept that MHCO has been fighting against for the past 20 years. MHCO negotiated with John VanLandingham (Lane County Law Center) and Representatives Marsh, Fahey and the House Speaker to reach a compromise that removed nearly all of HB 2008 and replaced it with three issues.

The first issue increases the amount homeowners are compensated when a community CLOSES from $5,000 (single wide), $7,000 (double wide), $9,000 (triple wide) to $6,000 (single wide), $8,000 (double wide), $10,000 (triple wide) and tied future increases in compensation to CPI.

The second issue in the compromise addressed resident-owned communities. USDA Rural Development would like to pilot their 502 1% loan program in resident-owned cooperatives, however, they won't if there are restrictions requiring a lien holder to remove an abandoned or foreclosed MH after 12 months. The compromise will give resident-owned cooperatives the flexibility to negotiate storage terms with lien holders that are beneficial to the cooperative. This, in turn, will allow the cooperative to attract lenders who offer extremely affordable loan products to manufactured homeowners in cooperatives who wish to replace older or unsafe homes with new, energy-efficient ones.

The third issue, when a community sells the new community owner will need to report to the state - the number of vacant spaces and homes in the manufactured dwelling park; the final sale price of the community; the date the conveyance became final; and the name, address and telephone number of the new owner.

Finally, the other issue of great concern to all landlords is RENT CONTROL. HB 2004A (the rent control bill) is in the Senate. In March the HB 2004A passed out of the Oregon House and has had a public hearing in the Senate. Final action on the bill (work session) is scheduled for the end of May. There is no indication what the Senate will do, but a number of Democratic Senators have expressed opposition. At this time all eyes are on the Senate - we should have a good idea later next week on what direction the Senate will take on rent control and the elimination of 'no cause' eviction. We will keep you posted on any developments - all should be revealed within the next two weeks.

MHCO Legal Counsel Phil Querin will do a complete analysis and provide practical advice for all MHCO members (managers and community owners) on these new laws later this summer. In addition all necessary changes to MHCO Forms will be made as well.

If you have any questions or concerns please feel free to contact the MHCO office at 503-391-4496.  

Question - A tenant's son has a conviction for sex abuse and is still on parole. He was living with his father in the community until neighbors found out about his conviction and began complaining about his presence because this is a family park with many children. We informed the son's father that he would have to leave due to his conviction. He did leave but now he is doing odd jobs here in the park. He also comes into the park to visit his family. We are getting resident complaints because people are still concerned for their children. Is there anything I can do as a manager to keep this man out of our community?

Question: Most of our RV guests are long-term tenants with month-to-month rental agreements. Many have been here for some time. What are the rules for raising rent?

Question: My question is about which notice for my situation, a 30-day for cause or a deterioration & repair notices. A long term resident has constructed a few different makeshift structures including a shed carport/garage and an add-on room attached to his home. All of these have been in place more than 12 months but past park ownership didn't mind. All of the structures were built without permission, contrary to his rental agreement, and without building permits from the city (also contrary to his rental agreement) and none of the structures conform to local building code that requires permits. We are not requesting that the resident re-build the structures during a specific time frame - we want the structures removed. Because these structures have been in place for more than 12 months do we need to give him a deterioration notice allowing up to a 6 months extension for them to be removed or can/should we give him a 30-day for cause notice?

Question. We have a grandmother in the park who takes care of an 8 month old grandchild while the mother works full time during the day. The mother of baby does not live in the park. The grandmother also takes care of an 11-year old girl during summer break while the mother works. The grandmother states the children do not stay overnight at her house and that the daughter picks them up after she gets off work. The grandmother does not "babysit" for money as these are her own daughter's kids.

The grandmother's husband passed away and a sister of the grandmother has since moved in and they are both on a new rental agreement as of Oct. 2014.

Our park rules state additional occupants must be age 40 or over and that guests/relatives can stay overnight for 30 days out of the year only.

What is your opinion on this situation? Should I tell the grandmother she is ok to watch over the children or should she be told she cannot babysit over 30 days per year? Or, is it OK for her to babysit the kids if they are not staying overnight at the house. I'm not clear on this issue and

our park owner and myself wish to get your opinion before we proceed.

Answer. I'm confused. May I assume the grandmother or her sister are at least 55 years old? If so, they qualify both as to the requirement that there be at least one occupant 55+, and as to the second person requirement. That should be the end of the age issue.

As for the babysitting, this is not a for-profit enterprise, so presumably does not violate any rules you might have for such situations. So all it is is family visiting, which is permissible under the rules. So long as the children are not staying overnight, I do not understand there to be a 30-day limit on this. If they do stay overnight, it appears there is a 30-day cap. But you don't say whether the 30-days is consecutive or cumulative. Unless there is some reason to believe the grandmother is lying about the children staying overnight (and even then, there is the 30-day rule) I don't see anything that suggests a violation. I know of nothing under the 55+ housing law that places restrictions on family visitors under age 55. In fact, as you may know, 55+ parks are permitted to have up to 20% of their spaces rented to families (which is not something should consider for a variety of reasons). However, the point is that the presence of children in a 55+ park does not, per se' cause the park to lose its 55+ designation.

I believe this situation demands a practical approach. Is the babysitting situation causing a problem, e.g. noise, disruption, children in street, lack of supervision, etc? Are other residents complaining? If none of these consequences are occurring, I don't see a concern, or a need to start counting days, etc. If the situation is not being abused, I'd leave it alone. You may want to privately discuss this with the grandmother, just to make sure she understands that it is important that she monitor her grandchildrens' activity at all times, just to make sure other (less child-friendly) residents don't complain.

The take-away here is that while rules are important, so long as they are not being abused, the need to be concerned primarily arises when there are complaints from other residents. If no one is complaining and the rules are not being blatantly abused, it does not seem necessary to become concerned.