The 2011 Oregon Legislative Session has now reached the halfway point.  MHCO has been successful in defeating a number of particularly bad pieces of legislation.  We need to stay engaged and vigiliant as the Legislative Session moves to adjournment in late June. 

MHCO Defeated:

HB 2172 - Rent Control with mandatory mediation and the establishment of a regulatory enforcement regime that would all the Oregon Attorney General enforcement landlord- tenant law in Oregon manufactured home communities.  For those of you who are familiar with Washington State this is a similar program with rent control.  This bill had strong support from many legislators who are in powerful positions, including Representative Buckley who is the House Ways and Means Co-Chair.  Peter Ferris was heavily involved in this bill - many of MHCO's members from southern Oregon have probably heard about his bill over the last year.  Many of the concepts will resurface again in future Legislatures.

HB 2885 - This bill originally applied to all  residential properties that had Department of Education employees who where evicted - required landlord to inventory their belongs and return appropriate property to the Department of Education.  This bill has been amended to exclude residential property.

HB 3073 - This bill expanded upon HB 2383 from 2009 that established a 14 day right of first refusal.  This bill was designed to increase the 14 days to an undetermined amount.  I will have more about this issue in a subsequent update on the landlord tenant coalition bill.  Representative Nathanson was hoping to increase the 14 days to a higher number.

HB 3183 - This bill lift the ban on local governments from passing rent control ordinances.  It will still have a hearing later this session, but since it the public hearing did not occur before today the bill cannot move forward to a work session.  It can only have a hearing - nothing more.  That being said, please do not be complacent when a hearing is scheduled - we need as many people to show up to oppose this bill as possible.  We will be dealing with this issue for the next session or two - we need to be vigilant.

Two additional issues that MHCO has been focused - mandatory water sub-metering and mandatory escrow when a community owner sells a manufactured home in their community have been significantly altered.  MHCO was able to perserve the exemption from mandatory water sub-metering for communities with 199 or less spaces.  MHCO also successfully changed SB 85 to eliminate the mandatory escrow requirement for community owners who sell a manufactured home in their community.  Two big wins for community owners in Oregon.

Attached is a complete final status report of all the legislation MHCO tracked since January 2011. Overall it was a very successful legislative session for owners of manufactured home communities. Please feel free to contact MHCO if you have any questions.

 Published: Friday, February 24, 2012, 10:30 PM Updated: Saturday, February 25, 2012, 9:56 AM Helen Jung, The Oregonian By Helen Jung, The Oregonian The Oregonian

When the Sazykin family's 14-year-old son rode his scooter on pathways around the Wah Mai Terrace Apartments complex in Southeast Portland, the apartment manager fined his parents $20.

When they left their children's play furniture and other items out on the patio, the apartment manager issued a few warnings and then another $20 fine.

The family's actions violated apartment policies, according to a complaint filed last September in Multnomah County Circuit Court. But under an agreement with the state announced Friday, the apartment complex and its property management firm will pay nearly $65,000 to tenants, the state and a legal aid organization. They will have to ditch policies that tenants criticized as discriminating against families.

And they will have to install a playground structure.

"It's a really good (result) for families in Oregon," said Christina Dirks, who represented the Sazykins, one of several families who made claims against the apartment complex and property management firm Norris & Stevens. "It's helping to assure that families in our community have equal access to enjoy their rental housing."

Under the agreement, Wah Mai Terrace and Norris & Stevens, do not admit any wrongdoing.

Norris & Stevens representatives did not return a call for comment.

Jonathan Radmacher, an attorney for the Wah Mai Terrace owners, said the policies were never meant to be anti-children.

He noted that the apartment complex owners and property managers were quick to address the problems as soon as they were brought up.

The policy that barred tenants from storing items other than bikes and barbecue grills on their patios was to keep the look of the complex presentable and clean, Radmacher said. The policy that prohibited children from riding bikes, tricycles, Big Wheel-type toys, skateboards and rollerskates on the property was out of concern for older residents, he said.

"There are lots of places to play in the neighborhood," he said, noting Ventura Park and Floyd Light Middle School, both about a block or two away from the complex at SE 111th and SE Stark.

He criticized the state, saying that the apartment complex and property managers were not aware of the discrimination concerns until the state intervened and threatened them with tens of thousands of dollars in state legal fees. "I know my client would never want to have any policy that's discriminatory... They would always want that brought to their attention, and they would fix it," he said. About $35,000 of the settlement will go to six current and former tenants. Norris & Stevens and Wah Mai Terrace also must pay attorney fees and costs of $20,000 to the Oregon Department of Justice and $9,816.36 to Legal Aid Services of Oregon.

Representatives for the two entities must participate in training on fair housing practices.

They also cannot try to collect fines and other debts that were levied against tenants under the potentially unlawful" policies.

Norris & Stevens

Why is a mortgage loan originator (MLO") license required?

In 2008

One of the most challenging issues facing park owners and managers is the issue of pets. ORS 90.530 outlines the do's and don'ts of pets in manufactured home communities. Here is a summary.

1. Changes in Community Rules or Regulations addressing pets: A resident may keep a pet that is living with the resident at the time of the rules and regulation change. The resident may also replace the pet with a pet similar to the one living with the tenant at the time of the rule change.

2. New rules and regulations that regulate the activities of pets shall apply to all pets in the facility including those pets that were living in the facility prior to the adoption of the new rules or regulations.

3. A landlord may provide written rules regarding control, sanitation, number, type and size of pets. The tenant shall sign a pet agreement and provide proof of liability insurance. The tenant shall make the landlord co-insured for the purpose of receiving notice in the case of cancellation of the insurance.

4. A landlord may not charge a one-time monthly or other periodic amount based on the tenant's possession of a pet.

5. A landlord may charge a tenant an amount for a violation of a written an amount for a violation of a written pet agreement or rules relating to pets not to exceed $50.00 for each violation.

6. Changes in Community Rules or Regulations addressing pets: A resident may keep a pet that is living with the resident at the time of the rules and regulation change. The resident may also replace the pet with a pet similar to the one living with the tenant at the time of the rule change.

7. New rules and regulations that regulate the activities of pets shall apply to all pets in the facility including those pets that were living in the facility prior to the adoption of the new rules or regulations.

8. A landlord may provide written rules regarding control, sanitation, number, type and size of pets. The tenant shall sign a pet agreement and provide proof of liability insurance. The tenant shall make the landlord co-insured for the purpose of receiving notice in the case of cancellation of the insurance.

9. A landlord may not charge a one-time monthly or other periodic amount based on the tenant's possession of a pet.

10. A landlord may charge a tenant an amount for a violation of a written an amount for a violation of a written pet agreement or rules relating to pets not to exceed $50.00 for each violation.

There is almost no greater issue that can create problems for landlords, than whether tenants can retain a pet they have brought into the community. How can owners and managers take control of the issue?

First, landlords should check their current rules and rental agreement. Although landlords who have previously permitted pets in the community, cannot retroactively prohibit them to tenants who already have pets living with them. Nor can they retroactively prohibit a type of pet that had previously been permitted. However, going forward, i.e. for new tenants, landlords should make sure that their rules place appropriate limitations on the size and type of pets that can be brought into the park. Rules should be drafted broadly to prohibit pets, e.g. breeds of dogs, that have a reputation for aggressiveness, or dogs of a particular size, or both.

Secondly, consistency is important. That is, landlords should be careful not to make exceptions or ignore violations of the pet rules. Otherwise, the landlord will be accused of either being arbitrary or "playing favorites." Selective prosecution of tenants for violation of the pet rules does not play well with judges and juries.

Lastly, in all cases, landlords should make sure that their tenants sign pet agreements for their animals. Oregon law expressly permits this. The MHCO agreement (Form 21) follows the statutory guidelines and assures that the tenant has liability insurance coverage. It also permits landlords to assess fines for violations of the rules.

By Tiffany Mittal - Multifamily Utility Company

Manufactured Homes and Submetering What is Submetering?

Submetering is the process of installing a water, gas or electric meter on each mobile home after the master utility meters for the mobile home park. The term submeter" is used for any meter installed after the master meter. With submeters installed at every mobile home the association is able to utilize a third party meter reading and billing company to read the meters and produce monthly bills for the selected utilities.

Why Submeter?

One of the largest expenses for a mobile home park is utilities. It is also an expense item that continues to increase over time. There are three major reasons for this:

o Rate Increases - The cost of energy (gas and electric) production and acquiring clean water has outpaced inflation for the past decade.

o Increases in Occupancy - Due to the economic environment more people are living with extended families. Higher occupancy leads to higher utility usage.

o Wasteful Usage - Residents are often less conservative with their utility usage when they are not aware of their individual consumption or do not have an incentive to save.

Studies have shown that once residents become aware of their utility usage

Question: A community's security camera taped one of the residents one night cutting the line and stealing the camera. The landlord wants to give a 30 day notice. Any issues the landlord should be aware of since it was video-taped? If the accused resident does nothing wrong again in the community after the 30-day notice has been served - then he gets to stay correct? Even though he does not return the camera or pay damages?

Answer: This is really a 24-hour notice issue. The applicable statute, ORS 90.396, gives you the right to issue a non-curable 24-hour notice. The theft constitutes (in my opinion) outrageous conduct