Question. Recently I learned that a resident/homeowner in our community had entered the military and was in basic training. The serviceman's partner is living in their home in our manufactured home community. The partner came to speak with me about selling their house as the partner will be moving to whatever base the serviceman is assigned, when basic training is completed. They are thinking they will sell in September. We don't know whether the Oregon Landlord-Tenant Law has any special provisions for service members. What can you tell us?

Tony Petosa and Nick Bertino - Wells Fargo Multifamily Capital

From both a global and national perspective, we are in the midst of witnessing major change unfold as President Trump takes over the reins from the Obama administration. It is undeniable that material shifts in policy are in the works, social and economic alike. Some of these will likely have an effect on the commercial real estate lending environment, including financing for manufactured home communities (MHCs). The Trump administration is already taking a new approach to banking regulations, which may at some point include working with Congress on the future of the government-sponsored entities (GSEs), Fannie Mae (FNMA) and Freddie Mac, both of which are active lenders to the MHC sector. More immediately, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd- Frank) is under review by the new administration in an effort to scale back regulations enacted during Obama's presidency. And, as if we didn't have enough change going on, many economists are predicting higher interest rates this year.

In 2016, FNMA and Freddie Mac continued to be reliable lending sources for multifamily and MHC properties while having remained in conservatorship since 2008. MHCs in 2016 were again excluded from the annual lending cap placed on the GSEs by their regulator, the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA), and consequently MHC loans were generally priced with interest rate spreads well inside of those for conventional apartment properties. In December 2016, the FHFA announced that MHCs would continue to be excluded from the lending caps in 2017, which came as welcomed news to MHC property owners and lenders alike. Since Freddie Mac and FNMA will not have a limit on the volume of MHC loans they can originate this year, we anticipate they will continue to price MHC loans aggressively.

While we appear to be in a state of business as usual" with the GSEs in the near term

What is Marketing?

Let's first look at what Webster has to say about the meaning of "marketing" -- (1) the act or process of buying and selling in a market; and (2) the commercial functions involved in transferring goods from producer to consumer. A more commercial definition of marketing that might be found in a high school or college text could read something like this: "creating a sale with the consumer for your product and/or service."

Then, let's look at Webster's definition of "promoting" -- (1) to forward or further, to encourage, to advance; (2) to raise to a more important rank, to contribute to the progress or growth of, to urge adoption of or advocate; and (3) to attempt to sell or popularize by advertising or by securing financial support. Again, a more commercial definition of promoting might be something like: "bringing the consumer to your product and/or service."

These definitions tell us that we need to be involved in both promoting and marketing! It is the act of promoting that creates enthusiasm and brings us the traffic. It is the act of marketing that defines the sale of a home or signing of a lease. Without both of these tools in your toolkit, you would have a really hard time filling, re-filling, or upgrading your community.

We are now well into the second half of the 2017 Oregon Legislative Session.   There finally is some good news - most of the bad legislative proposals that MHCO has been tracking have been defeated.  There are four remaining bills - two that MHCO supports and two that MHCO opposes that are still in play at this point in the legislative session.  The two bills supported by MHCO are the result of significant work and represent compromises that the MHCO worked on in order to keep more detrimental legislation from moving forward.  In a perfect world where the the legislative process is more business friendly these compormises would not have been necessary.  Sadly, that is not the legislative environment we are currently dealing with this session.

HB 2008 - this lengthy bill originally proposed everything MHCO has been fighting against over the past twenty years - from 'enforcement' to 'rent justification' and much longer timelines notifying residents when the community is to be sold.  All of HB 2008 was deleted and replaced with an amendment that addressed three items:

1. Increase park closure reimbursements form $5000/$7000/$9000 to $6000/$8000/$10000 for single/double/triple when a community is CLOSED.  Also eliminated a proposal that the community owner pay up to $20,000 in relocation costs per home when the community closes.
2. Addresses cooperatives (communities owned by residents).   Owner (resident in a cooperative) is not required to remove the home if the cooperative agrees with the owner to waive or extend the deadline by which the buyer or subsequent buyer must remove the home or store the home in the space for a specific period of time.  This only applies to homes in communities owned by the residents.
3. Upon sale of a manufactured home community the following information will be provided to residents:
   1. The number of vacant spaces and homes in the      community
   2. The final sale price of the community
   3. The date the conveyance became final

HB 2008 passed out of the House Committee on Human Services and Housing on Tuesday, April 18th with a vote 7-2 in favor.

SB 277 - This bill is the landlord-tenant coalition bill that was negotiated over several months by landlord and resident organizations.  This is the result of the controversies this past summer over disrepair and deterioration issues in communities that had received extensive media coverage.  The proposal increases the time residents have to make improvements from 30 to 60 days.

 The legislative proposal also clarifies disrepair and deterioration and addresses aesthetic" issues which are different from "deterioration" and "disrepair."  For example

Question. We would like to institute a policy allowing us to do a background check on all guests who stay at a property for 14 days or more. Is there something in ORS Chapter 90 that gives the landlord this right? Would this have to be in the rental agreement or rules? Is it enforceable?

There are several significant deadlines in the Oregon Legislature that start to willow down the life span of legislative proposals. The first of these deadlines was last Friday, April 7th. As of midnight on last Friday any bill in a committee in the chamber of origin (Senate bills in the Senate and House bills in the House) must be scheduled for a hearing and work session or the bill will not be considered any further during this legislative session. The exceptions to this rule are bills in Revenue Committees, Rules Committees and Ways and Means Committees which stay open the duration of the legislative session. The remaining bills will need to move out of committees by April 18th.

A number of bad legislative bills that MHCO has been fighting were stopped by last week's legislative deadline. However there are three bills that remain 'alive' that are of great concern:

HB 2004A: Prohibits landlord from terminating month-to-month tenancy without cause after first six months of occupancy except under certain circumstances with 90 days' written notice and payment of [relocation expenses] amount equal to one month's periodic rent. Provides exception for cer- tain tenancies for occupancy of dwelling unit in building or on property occupied by landlord as primary residence. Makes violation defense against action for possession by landlord. Requires fixed term tenancy to become month-to-month tenancy upon reaching specific ending date, unless tenant elects to renew or terminate tenancy. Requires landlord to make tenant offer to renew fixed term tenancy. [Repeals statewide prohibition on city and county ordinances controlling rents.] Permits city or county to implement rent stabilization program for rental of dwelling units. This bill passed the Oregon House and is now being considered in the Senate.

HB 2008: Requires landlord of manufactured dwelling park to pay tenant necessary relocation costs or applicable manufactured dwelling park closure penalty, as determined by Office of Manufactured Dwelling Park Community Relations, upon closure of park to convert to other use. Requires owner of manufactured dwelling park to give notice of final sale to office upon sale of park. Prohibits landlord from terminating without cause, unless under certain circumstances with 90 days' written notice, month-to-month tenancy consisting of rental of manufactured dwelling of float- ing home owned by landlord on space in facility. Requires fixed term tenancy consisting of rental of manufactured dwelling or floating home owned by landlord on space in facility to become month-to-month tenancy upon reaching specific end date, unless tenant elects to renew or terminate tenancy. Requires landlord to make tenant offer to renew fixed term tenancy. Requires office to produce materials to inform tenants of rights and adopt rules to require landlords to post materials in manufactured dwelling park public spaces. Directs office to establish and administer landlord-tenant dispute resolution program. Requires office to submit annual report on progress of program to interim committees of Legislative Assembly related to housing and human services for five years. Authorizes office to impose penalties for violations of landlord-tenant law against landlords of manufactured dwelling parks. Scheduled for a legislative work session on Thrusday.

HB 3331: Directs Office of Manufactured Dwelling Park Community Relations to establish and administer landlord-tenant dispute resolution program for disputes arising from notices of certain rent in- creases. Scheduled for legislative work session on Thursday.

We will be sending updates on the status of these three bills as they move through the legislative process. We are expecting significant amendments to HB 2008 but not enough to change MHCO's opposition. We are also expecting significant amendments in the Senate on HB 2004A. Again, the amendments will likely not change MHCO's opposition.

MHCO was successful in negotiating a landlord-tenant coalition bill (SB 277). This bill will be significantly amended on Wednesday in the Senate. We were also successful in exempting manufactured home communities from HB 2511. Obviously, all the bad bills left behind so far this session are a success - but we still have a lot work ahead. 

We have reached the halfway point of the 2017 Legislative Session. Unlike past legislative sessions this one looks to be a ugly and nasty fight to the end in July.    

A detailed list of bills currently being tracked by MHCO is attached - just click above the title.  

Question. I read some articles that MHCO published about trees, but am still seeking a little clarification about tree roots. Our situation is this: A long term resident has a very large tree on their space. I don't believe the tree was planted by them or their family. It is not a hazardous tree but does have a DBH of more than 8". The tenant recently reported a blockage with the sewer lateral on their space (not the main park line). We hired a company to clear the blockage which was tree roots. Is the park owner or the resident responsible for tree roots growing underground that affect a resident's plumbing? Is the resident's sewer lateral (and other underground utilities for that matter) considered their personal property and the repair or upkeep to keep roots clear the park owners responsibility? Any clarification you can provide is much appreciated.