Search

But when all is said and done, the one thing that takes most of the community manager's time is handling guideline violations. How do you, as an extremely busy person, do this with only a minimum amount of time invested? How do you handle residents as a fragile yet necessary part of your business and still get everything else done without making them feel that they are an imposition to you? How do you notify and discuss a guidelines violation with a resident without starting World War III? And, most importantly, how do you facilitate correction of outstanding violations in a timely manner.

Steps Toward Resolution

As with anything, there are no easy answers to these questions. Resolving problems must start before there is a problem. That means starting with the administrative side of your community. For a first step, look at the document you use for your community guidelines. Is it clearly written? Are the guidelines reasonable? Are they enforceable?

The second step is the orientation process. It is imperative that as a community manager, you take time to discuss certain items with residents after they have been approved. The lease, the terms of the rental agreement, and the specific requirements and provisions contained in the guidelines are high on the list of items to discuss. Is this a time-consuming process? Most definitely. And is there an alternative? None that are really acceptable. New residents will probably sign a statement that says they received the guidelines, have read them and agree to abide by them, even if they haven'tread them.

This is the start of a major problem for you as a community manager. They will most likely not go home and read the guidelines and, therefore, won't call you with any questions, because they can't possibly have any. This is the beginning of a major problem for you as a community manager. Your first realization that there is a problem should be when you see them in violation of one or more of the guidelines. When they receive a notice, a phone call, or a visit from you, one of their first comments is almost sure to be, "No one told me I couldn'tdo that," followed by an incredulous look of disbelief.

As a community manager, you are now in the position of not only enforcing your guidelines, but defending and explaining them as well. This is not an enviable position,

because rarely do such interactions end quickly or peacefully. Residents feel insulted, defensive and that they must somehow come out on top in a contest of wills. A community manager that comes on too strongly, that threatens eviction over the littlest thing, or that appears to be unreasonable will not gain cooperation from this resident, now or ever.

The Nightmare Begins

Now you've begun a nightmare of a resident relations problem, and it's sure to affect resident retention. The simple act of discussing guidelines during the orientation process can usually eliminate most of this grief. Hand-in-hand with the discussion, the resident needs to acknowledge his responsibilities and agree to abide by the terms explained in the guidelines.

The acknowledgement was for years obtained in the form of a separate statement that the new resident signed.

This statement went something like: "The undersigned agrees that he has read and understands all requirements as presented in the guidelines, and agrees to adhere to the terms contained therein during the time he is a resident of this community."

A copy of the guidelines was then given to the resident for future reference. In reality, community managers usually cut corners in the presentation and discussion of the lease and the guidelines. The resident usually makes it eminently clear that he is trying to move, is in a hurry, and doesn'thave time for a lot of paperwork. What a shame for everyone. This is a resident who is headed for misunderstandings and a community manager who is headed for problems.

When discussing guidelines with a new resident, take time to talk about each and every term and provision. Then, request that the resident, and all adult members of the family, either initial or sign each page of the guidelines.

Laid Out in Black & White

When a resident violates one of the guidelines and you have those initialed pages, you have the ability to turn a potentially contentious situation into a routine notification process. It happens because you now are able to simply send a basic form letter that saying "It appears that you may have decided to alter your lifestyle in such a way that it no longer is aligned with the guidelines for this community. At the time you joined us as a resident, we discussed the guidelines that set acceptable parameters of behavior and responsibility for resident and management alike who live in (community name). Please call the office so that we may discuss your decision to change your lifestyle with you." Then, staple a copy of the initialed page with the violated guideline(s) currently being violated.

What happens is the realization on the part of the resident that he is caught dead to rights. There is no wiggle room here. There is no need for him to try to defend his actions or to tell you that he didn'tknow he was violating a guideline. And, there is no need for him to feel like he is backed into a corner and has to become aggressive or belligerent. Your notice simply acknowledges that he has made a choice, and asks for him to take time to discuss it with you.

Remember, the best resident relations program can be compared to a round room: If you don't back a resident into a corner where he has to defend himself you can truly have a productive conversation, mutual respect, and a meeting of the minds. If you force him to lose face; if you turn this type of situation into a confrontation where the battle lines are drawn; or if you place a large amount of importance on the "winning" of every disagreement, you've lost the resident relations game before you even started.

Resolve those guideline violations that frequently happen by using peer pressure, rewards, public recognition, and, once in a while, fear. By using all

these techniques and more, you can truly enforce your guidelines and build your resident relations program to new heights.

Yours will be the community run by a manager with a reputation for being fair, honest, and consistent. The time and emotional energy you spend on guideline violations will be greatly reduced, and the time you do spend in the future will be much more pleasant.

Where The Problems Lie

Which of your community guide-lines are violated the most often? What problems do you need to eliminate in order to better meet the goals of your community owner or to have a more professionally operated community?

Among these are reducing receivables; out-of-compliance clotheslines; the building of decks that are required as part of the initial installation but are still not done 60 days later; installation of skirting that is supposed to be done by a third party and remains undone; residents who ride bicycles on the community streets without paying attention to motorists; and residents who "forget" the streets have a speed limit and are not part of the Indianapolis Motor Speedway.

Introduction.  As most MHCO members may remember, ORS 90.630 had a “one-size-fits-all” approach to tenant violations. There was a 30-day cure period for all violations of the law, rules or rental/lease agreement, and if not cured by the 30thday following delivery of the notice, the tenancy was terminated.

The problem with that approach was that some violations consisted of isolated single acts, such as speeding through the park in violation of the community rules. This raised the question, what to do about repeat violations withinthe 30-day period? As long as the conduct ceased before last day of the 30-day cure period, was a tenant in compliance with the termination notice? Without getting into the reasons why I believe such an approach was incorrect, the issue is now moot.

Revisions to ORS 90.630. Pursuant to the new Landlord-Tenant Coalition Bill, SB 586, ORS 90.630 has been amended to specifically deal with single, isolated violations that are notof a continuing nature (such as, for example, the failure to maintain the space, or exterior of the home).

Although MHCO has made the appropriate changes to its forms, members are encouraged to review them in advance of using them. The protocols are different and may take some getting used to. We now have two forms, (a) one for “continuing” violations, and (b) another for those that consist of a single, non-repetitive act. There are also some changes to the statute that apply to both types of violations. Here is a summary:

1. All violations for which a notice is issued must be “material”. Although this term is not defined in the legislation, suffice it to say, you (should) know it when you see it. An isolated failure to mow the front yard one week is not a “material” violation that should trigger a 30-day notice of termination. That is what clean-up notices are for. 

2. The 30-day notice now must separately designate a “termination date”. It is not sufficient to say that the tenancy will terminate if the violation continues past the last day of the 30-day cure period. The MHCO form has been appropriately revised.

3. Conduct is “ongoing” if:

1. 1. It is “constant or persistent or has been sufficiently repetitive over time that a reasonable person would consider the conduct to be ongoing”; and
   2. The violation does not involve a pet or assistance animal;
   3. If it is ongoing, the same rules apply as previously, i.e. there is a 30-day cure period (however now a separate “termination date” must be identified, which can simply be the date following the last day of the cure period – as long as it is specifically identified).

4. A critical difference with the separate conduct 30-day notice is that there are now two time periods.

1. 1. The resident has a cure period of “…at least three days after delivery of the notice.” If not so cured within that time (e.g. tenant continues to speed through park) the tenancy will terminate on a date at least 30 days following delivery of the notice. 
   2. Note: it will be important for management to specifically identify the date three or more days hence. Otherwise, the cure period would end on the designated termination date not less than 30 after the delivery of the notice (or 33 if sent by regular mail).

5. Similar to the ongoing violation, for the separate conduct violation, at least one possible method for correction must be identified.

6. The six-month period for the repeat violation (which, if it occurs, entitles management to issue a 20-day non-curable notice) has been corrected. 

1. 1. Previously, the 6-month period commenced from the date of delivery of the violation notice, which was effectively only a 5-month period. 
   2. The new law, and the new MHCO violation form, now begin 6-month period from the termination date designated in the notice. 

7. There were no other material changes to ORS 90.630, including the 3-strikes law.

Conclusion. On its face, the changes appear to address the isolated violation issue with a shortened cure period, and automatically terminating the tenancy within 30-days if not so cured. 

Since I was not present during the discussion of these changes at the Coalition, I cannot comment on the rationale that resulted in this approach. But I cannot help but feel that a resident who fails to cure within the 3-day period – and now has 30 days hang around the park before vacating – has little incentive to be on his/her best behavior. What more can management do to protect the safety and welfare of the other residents while the terminated resident remains in the community?  Perhaps the 24-hour notice provisions of ORS 90.396could be amended to address this issue.

By:  Dale Strom, Second Generation Oregon Community Owner and MHCO Board Member

This is the third of a multiple part series on a private owner of a Manufactured Home Community willingly attempting to sell that Community to an Association of tenants within that Community. Riverbend MHP is a 39 space community located within the city limits of Clatskanie, OR. In the first part of this series, the motivation of the owner is revealed on why he wanted to work with CASA of Oregon exclusively rather than offering this Community for sale to all interested private parties. In the second part, the owner met with the Deputy Director and the Real Estate and Cooperative Development Manager for CASA of Oregon. The framing, presentation and negotiation of the Agreement to Purchase" was discussed.

In this third part

Last week the Manufactured Housing Landlord Tenant Coalition held it's final meeting.  Some changes were made to the In Park Sales Conflict" issue but the other three issues remained substantially unchanged from our meeting in January. 

The MHCO Board of Directors has reviewed the proposed coalition bill and voted unanimously to support the proposed legislation.  Phil Querin is working on some last minute adjustments to the "In Park Sales" section of the proposal.  The coalition proposal will go to Legislative Counsel early this week to be drafted into a House Bill. 

MHCO has been working on bi-partisan support for the proposal.  There will be Democratic and Republican sponsors.   All this should make it easier to pass the proposal this spring.  In all likelihood the public hearing for this bill will be in March.

Here is a brief summary of the proposed legislation:

1. Unpaid Taxes on Abandoned Homes

This issue was MHCO's top legislative priority for the 2015 Legislative Session.  We are very happy with the agreement that we were able to reach which nearly eliminates all unpaid taxes on an abandoned home.

In general

Answer: Under the Fair Housing Act ("the Act") housing providers including landlords, are required to make reasonable accommodations to the rented facilities and common areas, if requested by a handicapped tenant or their legal occupant ('the requestor").

Landlords are entitled to obtain reasonable information from the requestor in order to assist in determining whether the requested accommodation is reasonably necessary because of the disability. If a person(s) disability is obvious, or otherwise known to the landlord, and if the need for the requested accommodation is readily apparent or known, then the landlord may not seek any additional information about the requestor's disability or the disability-related need for the accommodation. This law also applies to the use of assistance animals.

A "reasonable accommodation" is a reasonable change, exception or adjustment to a rule, policy practice or service that will enable a handicapped person to have an equal opportunity to use and enjoy the rented facilities and common areas. There must be an identifiable relationship between the requested accommodation and the person's disability. Landlords are not required to make requested accommodations if doing so would impose an undue financial or administrative burden upon them or fundamentally alter the nature of the landlord's operations. With respect to a person, a "handicap" means: (a) one with a physical or mental impairment which substantially limits one or more major life activities; (b) one with a record of such impairment; or (c) one who is regarded as having such an impairment. [Juvenile offenders, sex offenders, persons who illegally use controlled substances and those with a disability whose tenancy would constitute a direct threat to others, or result in substantial physical damage to the property of others, are generally not protected under the Act.]

If a landlord refuses a requested accommodation, the requestor is encouraged to have a discussion with the landlord concerning an alternative accommodation. This is a summary only and not intended to constitute legal advice. For more information, landlords, tenants and legal occupants of tenants are encouraged to consult with their attorney or a Fair Housing expert if they have any questions regarding their rights and responsibilities.

My first reaction is that what the resident is requesting is not appropriate for several reasons [and not simply because other residents do not have computers and cannot access Facebook]. Here is a sampling:

• He is asking for information that goes to business/management issues that may not be appropriate for sharing with residents, either because it is not available, it is subject to change, it may not be known, etc. Even if it is appropriate for discussion at the general meetings, I can see this forum moving in the direction of demanding more and more information than management is willing to share. The test for content is, I suppose, whether it would be a topic of discussion at open meetings.
• There should be one time and place for these meetings, and if you are not going to give up open meetings at scheduled times, then the Facebook approach is not only duplicative, but risks creating two lines of communication, one at the public meetings and the other over the Internet. You should limit the meetings to the open forum.
• Anonymity is a dangerous format for questions, since he could simply begin making up his own questions, turning the Facebook forum into an opportunity for his own private inquisition.
• I don't think I would like to see my residents' questions spread across the Internet, for business reasons. Resident meetings are not open to the public, as far as I know. Why would you do so with an Internet forum?
• Clearly, what he wants is not what the other residents want - his request for the accommodation ignores their wishes and your needs as a manager. In other words, it is administratively impossible.
• I'm sure with time I could come up with a host of other objections.

You should, of course, take this request seriously. While you want to briefly explain why you are unwilling to participate in this process, you don't want this to get into a lengthy dialogue on the matter. For example, what if you gave three reasons for declining his request? Then he files a Fair Housing claim, and you then give five reasons? It appears that you just made up two new ones. Accordingly, anything you say should be couched in "Here are some - but not necessarily all - of the reasons I cannot grant your request. The shorter the better. No need to get into a lengthy letter writing campaign.

You should definitely make a counter-proposal for the kind of accommodation you can grant - e.g. have someone take minutes of the open meetings (not recordings). He and everyone else can have the minutes for review. If anyone wants to raise a question or comment about the minutes, they may do so at the following meeting. He can select a proxy - i.e. another resident - to relay his questions and concerns at the meetings he does not want to attend.

Lastly, it appears that the rest of the residents want you present - his demand seems to want to subordinate everyone's needs to his. That is not the concept behind a "reasonable accommodation." It comes from the landlord to the requestor - not from the residents. Granting him what he wants/needs by taking minutes and allowing the proxy, reaches a far better balance for everyone involved. The residents have open meetings and he has access through the minutes and his proxy.

Answer: It is now statewide law that rents cannot be raised at all during the first year of a month-to-month tenancy. After the first year of the tenancy, you are required to give written notice to the tenant at least 90 days prior to the effective date of the rent increase.

The written rent increase notice to tenants must state (1) the amount of the rent increase; (2) the amount of the new rent; and, (3) the date on which the increase becomes effective. If the notice is mailed to the tenants, you must add at least three additional days to the notice period (not counting the date mailed) to allow for mailing. The notice can also be hand-delivered to the tenants, but this means putting it directly in the tenant's hand - posting the notice is legally ineffective.

If you happen to have any fixed-term tenancies, be aware that rent can only be raised for those tenants in accordance with whatever the rental agreement says concerning rent increases. Week-to-week tenants can have their rent raised with at least seven days' written notice prior to the effective date of the increase. The same rules apply regarding the information that must be in the notice (amount, new rent, effective date), and regarding additional mailing time for the notice.

There is currently no limit on the amount of a rent increase, although there are rent control measures under consideration in the Oregon legislature. With that in mind, beware that any rent increase that you issue before the legislature adjourns might be subject to new laws. Check in on the MHCO website to keep apprised of any legislative changes.

Special rules also apply within the Portland city limits. By ordinance, a rent increase of 10% or more within a 12-month period triggers the tenant's right to terminate the tenancy on 14 days' written notice and potentially receive a "relocation assistance" payment from the landlord. These payments are based on the size of the rental unit and start at $2,900. However, it is questionable whether the ordinance as written applies to RV tenancies. If you intend to issue a rent increase of 10% or more within the City of Portland, you should first consult with a knowledgeable attorney to assess the risk of being subject to relocation payments.

Answer: This may be a habitability issue which you will have to address. Here is what the statute says about the landlord's habitability duties in a manufactured housing park:

90.730 (Landlord duty to maintain rented space, vacant spaces and common areas in habitable condition.) provides:

(2) A landlord who rents a space for a manufactured dwelling or floating home shall at all times during the tenancy maintain the rented space, vacant spaces in the facility and the facility common areas in a habitable condition. The landlord does not have a duty to maintain a dwelling or home. A landlord's habitability duty under this section includes only the matters described in subsections (3) to (5) of this section.

(3) For purposes of this section, a rented space is considered uninhabitable if it substantially lacks:

(e) At the time of commencement of the rental agreement, buildings, grounds and appurtenances that are kept in every part safe for normal and reasonably foreseeable uses, clean, sanitary and free from all accumulations of debris, filth, rubbish, garbage, rodents and vermin;" (Underscore mine.)

This would seem to suggest that from a habitability standpoint, as long as the space was in good shape at the commencement of the tenancy, you no longer have any further duty to the resident. I think that conclusion would be a mistake.

Here, the condition of the space has deteriorated due to the proximity of the stream. Inasmuch as you own the ground, and the ground is failing, I would suggest that relocating the home is your responsibility. Alternatively, if the stream is on a part of the park property, you may want to explore stabilizing the lateral support of the side of the stream.

Look at it this way: If you do nothing, and the subsidence continues to the point of damaging the tenant's home, he or she will have a damage claim against the park. If you relocate the home or properly fix the stream bank, further risk of damage is greatly reduced if not eliminated.

If you do pay to relocate the home, make sure that you have a professional address the issue of any further erosion from the stream. You don't want to have to address this problem again a few years down the road.

Answer: ORS Chapter 90, the Oregon Residential Landlord Tenant Act, is replete with references to tenant associations. Residents clearly have many rights when it comes to the formation of an association, including the right of assembly and the right to canvass other residents. However, nowhere does the law say that park owners and managers have a legal duty to provide individual contact information to other residents, regardless of the purpose for which it is sought. Here is what ORS 90.750 [“Right to assemble or canvass in facility; limitations”] says on the matter: • No park bylaw, rental agreement, regulation or rule shall infringe upon resident rights to: o Peaceably assemble in an open public meeting for any lawful purpose, at reasonable times and in a reasonable manner, in the common areas or recreational areas; reasonable times are the hours of 8 a.m. to 10 p.m. daily. o To communicate or assemble among themselves, at reasonable times and in a reasonable manner, for the purpose of discussing any matter, including but not limited to any matter relating to the park, or manufactured dwelling living. • The discussions may be held in the common areas or recreational areas of the facility, including halls or centers, or any resident’s home. • However, the landlord may enforce reasonable rules and regulations including but not limited to place, scheduling, occupancy densities and utilities. • A landlord may not prohibit any resident from canvassing other persons in the same facility for certain prescribed purposes. The term “canvassing” includes door-to-door contact, an oral or written request, the distribution, circulation, posting or publication of a notice or newsletter, a general announcement or any other matter relevant to the membership of a tenants’ association. • However, a landlord is not required to permit any person to solicit money, except that a tenants’ association member, whether or not a tenant of the facility, may personally collect delinquent dues owed by an existing member of a tenants’ association. • Lastly, the statute clarifies that it is not intended to require a landlord to permit any person to disregard a tenant’s request not to be canvassed. To me, this last provision suggests an answer to your question, as it acknowledges that some residents may not want to be “canvassed.” In other words, they have certain rights not to be disturbed, and may request management’s assistance in preventing it from occurring. Accordingly, my view is that before contact information is shared by management with other residents, advance consent should be received from each affected person. Without such consent, I would be very hesitant to give out the information. Certainly, the resident seeking the contact information can try to obtain it by going door-to-door and asking for it. If community management already maintains a published directory of residents that contains names and addresses, I suppose consent is implied by the lapse of time, assuming that everyone knows of the directory. But I would not recommend this practice, and certainly would not share the information with other residents. My conclusions are based not so much on some legal duty of “confidentiality” or legally protectable “right of privacy.” With the Internet, it’s hard to say much of our private information is legally protectable any more. My feeling is a practical one: If there is no affirmative legal duty to provide the information, and there is some risk, however remote, that sharing it without advance consent could anger some residents, it is far better to decline your resident’s request. It does not hamper the association formation process in any way, and respects every resident’s privacy, however limited it is today.

Answer: I assume that when he tenders the rent, you accept it and report to the court that the case is to be dismissed. This means that any leverage you had to make the full payment, including court fees, has disappeared. You might consider one of the two following alternatives:

1. Since the 72 hours has already expired and you've had to file the FED complaint, you are not required to accept the rent unless he agrees to pay the court fees. Next time, if he declines, don't let the case be dismissed. Go to the regularly scheduled first appearance. If he shows up, tell the judge you'd gladly permit him to stay if he pays the filing fees. If he can't afford to pay it in one lump sum, negotiate a repayment plan (e.g. 50% next month and 50% the following month). Then have the judge put the agreement in a Stipulated Judgment of Restitution, which means that if he doesn'tpay the sums do as scheduled, you can go back to court to have him evicted.

1. Under Oregon's "three strikes" law [ORS 90.630(8)-(10)], if a resident is issued three 72-hour notices within a rolling 12 month period, you can issue them a 30-day non-curable eviction notice, on or shortly after, the third strike. Then you can say to the resident that you will permit them to stay only on condition of payment of the outstanding court fees. Obviously, this is a pretty big hammer and if they can't pay the fees all at once, you should negotiate partial payments, similar to what I suggested above. However, this alternative would automatically not result in a "Stipulated Judgment of Restitution" (you would have to be in court to get that). For that reason, I prefer No. 1 over No. 2.

Answer: ORS 90.485 specifically allows landlords to have a vehicle towed if it: (a) Blocks or prevents access by emergency vehicles; (b) Blocks or prevents entry to the premises; (c) Violates a prominently posted parking prohibition; (d) Blocks or is unlawfully parked in a space reserved for persons with disabilities; (e) Is parked in an area not intended for motor vehicles including, but not limited to, sidewalks, lawns and landscaping; (f) Is parked in a space reserved for tenants but is not assigned to a tenant and does not display a parking tag or other device; or, (g) Is parked in a specific space assigned to a tenant (but only with the tenant's agreement at the time of the tow).

First and foremost, you should ensure that you have the proper signage in your park specifying whether and/or when parking is allowed in certain areas (i.e., "No Overnight Street Parking"). Also contact a local towing company to have them post towing company signs around the park.

When you have an illegally parked vehicle towed, the towing company is responsible for taking a photo of the vehicle and reporting to the police that it has been towed. After the car is removed, the towing company takes responsibility for the vehicle and returning it to the owner (after paying the tow fees, of course).

I would also suggest a rule allowing the park to assess parking violation charges of $50 per violation. As required by ORS 90.302 (3), the rule should specify that the first violation would result in a written warning, with subsequent violations within one year being assessed the $50 charge. ORS 90.302 (3) specifies the language that must be included in the written warning, which you should consult with an attorney to draft.

There are certain technical nuances to these statutes, so as usual consult with an experienced attorney before implementing a parking enforcement plan. But the bottom line is that you do have tools at your disposal to cut down on parking problems.