Author: Floatinghomeowners1

We Testified at the Capitol in Support of SB 586 on March 4, 2019

We had a hearing on on March 4 in front of the Senate Housing Committee where we testified in support of our bill.

It was a busy day and we were each allotted only 3 minutes to state our support of the bill. Anyone that knows me also knows how passionate I am about floating homes and our issues. I tried very hard to prepare a 3 minute testimony, but I also felt that there are so many misconceptions about floating homes that some background and context needed to be provided so that urging the Senators to our support of the bill made sense to them. I wanted to ensure that floating homes issues were on their radar. In the end, I hoped that they would give me more time to testify and they did!

The Senators gave me permission to continue well-past the 3 minute limit – they seemed engaged and fascinated to learn out our unique floating homes!

The testimony witnesses were John VanLandingham (tenant representative), Chuck Carpenter (park landlord representative), John DiLorenzo (landlord representative), Nancy Inglehart (park tenant representative), Angela Garvin (marina tenant representative), Stan Tonneson (marina landlord representative), and Charlie Greeff (landlord attorney representative). John said afterwards that “Angela made quite an impression; two of the committee members that we met with this week could only remember the hearing and our bill when we mentioned the marina witness.”

There are two ways to review the testimony.

  1. I submitted testimony in written form in advance of the hearing, just in case we were not able to testify or in the event that my verbal testimony was too long and they “gonged” me (late 70s TV game show reference). You can read that written testimony here: https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2019R1/Downloads/CommitteeMeetingDocument/166612
  2. All hearings are videotaped and available to the public. So, you can actually see how the hearing played out. My verbal testimony was shortened from the longer written testimony submitted and was also reordered for more impact, given the short amount of time we were given. The maria portion of the video testimony starts at minute 25:39 and lasts about 10 minutes: http://oregon.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=6&clip_id=26036&meta_id=1246351

To read all of the written testimony from March 4th: https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2019R1/Measures/Exhibits/SB586

To view the entire video testimony from March 4th: http://oregon.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=6&clip_id=26036&meta_id=1246351

We had a VERY busy January, February and March working through some glitches with the language.  So, in summary, here is where we are:

  • The Floating Home Marina portion of the bill is largely correct as written in SB 586.
    • We are already aware of a few corrections on the marina portion which still need to be made – so if you choose to read through it and happen to see a few details which slightly confuse you – we are aware.  Our coalition does not write our bill – Legislative Council does this task (our assigned LC was somewhat new and overloaded with work) – so there were a few interpretations of our ideas which were drafted which need to be finessed to match our intent.
  • In order to not slow down the process and risk the entire bill’s success, the plan is to get our bill voted on and approved by the Senate and THEN make those needed amendments prior to its vote in the House.  Ideally, all of this would have been locked down in the fall.  But our marina bill is part of a bigger bill and there were 2 issues in the larger bill which required negotiations past the deadlines for bill submission.  Those 2 issues (mandatory mediation for park/marina landlords and tenants and improving the park/marina eviction language so that tenants cannot get eviction notices for minor park/marina rule infractions) were not marina-specific issues but DO affect marinas.  So it was important to get those right even if we missed the deadline to include them in the first go around
  • We have a Senate work session scheduled for the bill on April 1, 2019. Because the bill will not be complete when we get to the April 1 work session, the plan is to move it through the Senate and then complete the amendments – adding the Big Three issues and getting the others right – for the House to consider. That will give our Legislative Counsel enough time to get the bill language right.
  • We anticipate the Senate voting this through and then it will be assigned to a House Committee and worked over in the House.  This is when we will add the 2 issues via amendments and fix the language to match our intent on all topics.
  • If approved in the House, then it will go back to the Senate for a vote on the amendments.

We wil keep you posted.

Please try to forgive any delays in my posting updates. I have gone back to work full-time in my normal life, so I will be busier than usual. Thank you, in advance, for patience.

What Happened at the February 22, 2019, MH Coalition Meeting?

This meeting was held in Salem and John DiLorenzo facilitated. 

The MH Coalition came to an agreement on all fronts at what was, we can now say, the final MH Coalition meeting for this set of issues for proposed legislation during the 2019 session.

I can’t begin to tell you how high the stakes were. In January, our proposed marina issues became a Senate bill – SB 586 to be exact!! But since the MH Coalition was still debating some key parts and because the person who was assigned to us to draft the actual legal language was new to the process – everything was delayed and our bill was at risk of not progressing further if we didn’t come to a place of agreement at this February 22nd meeting.

It was critical that the MH Coalition find resolution on the final issue – how to deter tenants from committing minor marina/park rule violations.

Keep in mid that, currently, the law states that tenants can be evicted for a minor rule violation such as parking in the wrong parking space.

We seek to change that. No one should lose their home because they parked in the wrong space once.

So we created solutions to address this in our bill by restricting noncompliance evictions only for “Material Violations” of the lease – for example: nonpayment of rent, being a danger to the community, etc. MAJOR lease noncompliance issues.

Which left minor rule violations unaddressed and without any “teeth” to hold a tenant liable for following the marina rules. Landlords needed something to deter tenants from committing minor rule infractions if they were going to allow us to change the law to allow evictions for major lease infractions.

The three options on the table to deter tenants from committing minor rule violations were:

  1. 3 Strikes and You’re Out rule – if a tenant commits a minor rule violation such as parking in the wrong parking space on three separate occasions and was served notice on each occasion (but also corrected it after the first 2 notices) within a 12-month period, then the 3rd notice would trigger the eviction process and the tenant would not have a chance to correct the 3rd violation. Floating home tenancies in California operate under a similar law.
  2. Fees for Minor Violations – if a tenant commits a minor rule violation such as parking in the wrong parking space, then a landlord can charge a fee as long as that fee is listed in the rental agreement AND allowed by ORS 90.302. The problem is that, by law, a landlord cannot change a rental agreement to add the ability to charge fees. So this option would allow landlords to unilaterally amend rental agreements already in place only for the purpose of being able to legally capture fees for minor violations. There are limits: minor rule violation fees can only be charged for about 7 limited things already listed in ORS 90.302 (more on those below).
  3. Do nothing. Keep the law as is and if a tenant commits a minor rule violation such as parking in the wrong parking space, the landlord can serve them an eviction notice. YIKES!!

The tenants debated a TON about this one off-line in multiple conversations in preparation for the February 22nd meeting. We took this last bit of negotiations very seriously. This has serious consequences for changing the law and there are serious consequences if we do not change the law.

We had earlier in the month decided that option 1 was likely to be abused the most since eviction was at stake. And we knew we need to do something to protect tenants from living in fear of being evicted for silly infractions, so we could not choose option 3, doing nothing.

So we negotiated and debated every aspect of option 2 – fees – until we were comfortable enough that it was as good as it could be and a definite improvement on what we have.

Our primary areas of concern centered around the potential abuse of fees and that a landlord did not have to prove anything, just send a fee notice. However, currently, the landlord does not have to prove you committed the minor rule violation to place you in an eviction hearing anyway. So, while the fees do not solve every possible abuse scenario, we did have a lot of discussion about ways to mitigate that risk of abuse.

The other area of concern was the hierarchy or order of the application of payments – we wanted the same protections as apartment tenants listed in 90.220(9). If you’ll recall from the last post, ORS restricts the order of the application of an apartment tenant’s payment and makes sure that landlords cannot apply a tenant payment to a fee before they apply it to rent owed. But this law does not apply to marina tenancies. However, we found comfort in realizing that ORS 90.302(3)(a)(E), which does apply to marina tenancies, prohibits landlords from deducting a noncompliance fee from a rental payment.

This left us to wrestle with only the potential for abuse of landlords charging fees. Many good ideas were generated from these outside tenant sessions to help reduce the risk of abuse.

However, in order to fully vet those ideas, we needed more time, which we did not have if we wanted our bill to be voted on in this legislative session. So, with the entire bill at risk – every issue we had already greed upon over the previous 2 years of work. So we came to agreement that this item is better than what we have, but we will propose improvements to it in the next legislative session.

Our bill proposes to allow park and marina landlords to unilaterally amend leases ONLY to be able to charge tenants fees for these things listed in ORS 90.302:

The non-compliance fees allowable by ORS 90.302, IF IF IF they are also described in your lease fall into 3 main areas:

(1) Fees authorized by other statutes.

(a) Late rent payments, ORS 90.260

(b) NSF checks, ORS 30.701

(c) Removal or tampering with a smoke alarm or carbon monoxide detector, ORS 90.525 (2) – Obviously not applicable to us

(d) Facility pet rule violation, ORS 90.530

(e) Lease-break fee (contract law)

(2) Noncompliance with the rental agreement, as specified:

(a) The late payment of a utility or service charge that the tenant owes the landlord as described in ORS 90.315 (Utility or service payments).

(a) The late payment of a utility or service charge that the tenant owes the landlord as described in ORS 90.315 (Utility or service payments).

(2) Failure to clean up pet waste from a part of the premises other than the dwelling unit.

(3) Failure to clean up the waste of a service animal or a companion animal from a part of the premises other than the dwelling unit.

(4) Failure to clean up garbage, rubbish and other waste from a part of the premises other than the dwelling unit.

(5) Parking violations.

(6) The improper use of vehicles within the premises.

(7) Smoking in a clearly designated nonsmoking unit or area of the premises. The fee for a second or any subsequent noncompliance under this subparagraph may not exceed $250. A landlord may not assess this fee before 24 hours after the required warning notice to the tenant.

(8) Keeping on the premises an unauthorized pet capable of causing damage to persons or property, as described in ORS 90.405 (Effect of tenant keeping unpermitted pet). The fee for a second or any subsequent noncompliance under this subparagraph may not exceed $250. A landlord may not assess this fee before 48 hours after the required warning notice to the tenant.

(3) Other:

(a) Attorney fees authorized by 90.255

(b) Applicant screening charges per ORS 90.295

(c) Improvements requested by a tenant that are not the duty of the landlord

(d) Credit card processing fees

However, I was able to successfully make an argument to the MH Coaltion landlords and tenants such that fees cannot be charged to marina tenants for item #5: Parking Violations.

My argument is that, unlike park tenants who have driveways and carports which can fit multiple vehicles, marina tenants are at risk of parking violation every time they enter the marina in a vehicle because we only have common areas to park in. Subjecting marina tenants to fees for parking violations would risk them owing money when a service vehicle (house keeping, contractor, friend, guest, etc.) parks in a common area in violation of marina rules, as well as, every time we park. There is no safe-haven for parking because we have no private driveway or parking available to us. ALL marina parking is located in a common area subject to potential parking violations.

So, the MH Coalition agreed that marina landlords cannot charge fees for minor parking violations. The ability of a landlord to charge parking violation fees listed in ORS 90.302 (3)(b)(A) will only apply to park tenants.

And this ability for marina landlords to charge fees for minor noncompliances (with the exception of parking) will be in exchange for our ability to remove the language from the law which allows landlords to evict tenants for minor rule infractions.

And with that, the MH Coalition came to full agreement on our issues and wrapped up our meetings for this legislative session.

The bill will now be amended to reflect our new decisions and then work its way through the Oregon Legislature.

The next steps are to get the Legislative Counsel to draft our issues into bill language to amend our bill from January. Have our bill heard in a Senate work group, then voted and passed in the full Senate. Then onto the House for the same. Then back to the Senate for final voting to approve any amendments that the legislative counsel did not finish in time for the previous Senate vote!

It is important to note that Move-in, Move-out, facility use, and membership fees are not listed as an allowable fee by ORS and are therefore not legal to charge a tenant.

What Happened at the February 6, 2019, MH Coalition Meeting?

This meeting was held in Salem and John VanLandingham facilitated.

INFORMATION SHARING:

  • We discussed SB 608 in detail. This is not our bill. It is the bill sponsored by Rep. Kotek and covers rent caps among other items.
    • Part 1 pertains to “double tenancies” – in other words, for floating home owners who rent their floating homes to tenants. You can only evict your tenant with good cause after the 1st year of occupancy. There are a few exceptions to this such a homes newer than 15 years among other reasons.
    • Part 2 is a rent cap. No more than once a year, a marina landlord can raise the rent but no more than 7%, plus the Consumer Price Index (which is around 3% right now).
    • This bill will pass. It may pass with an emergency clause which simply means that, instead of going into effect as law on January 1 of the following year, it will go into effect in 90 days from the signing.
    • We spent quite some time discussing this because the Landlords don’t like being limited by how often and by how much they can raise rents on their park tenants and floating home owners.
    • But we cannot weigh in on their bill.
  • Our Bill SB 586 Schedule:
    • Jan 14: The bill was introduced
    • Jan 17: It was Scheduled for review by various groups – tax, finance and revenue, environmental
    • February 22: We will meet one last time to come to final agreement.
    • Early March: It will likely have a hearing – Senator Fahey is pressing for a hearing of it. We need to have final agreement on all concepts by then.
    • April 9: The deadline to schedule a required Senate Work Session to review it.

TERMINATIONS:

There are three parts to this issue:

Part 1: We agree to make a distinction between separate and ongoing minor violations.

Part 2: We agree to add “Materially” to describe the types of violations for which a tenant can be terminated. (But, given that we are adding in language to describe “material” (major) violations, it only seems reasonable to add language around what constitutes a minor violation.

Part 3: We have not come to agreement on who to treat minor violations.

The Tenants largely agreed to eliminate the 3 strikes and you are out option because Tenants do not think it’s right (for a numbers of reasons – too many to explain here) to evict someone because their dog was off leash 3 times or any other minor violation. We OWN our homes.

Which leaves us with the option to allow Landlords the ability to charge us fees. But not all Tenants agreed on this. Approximately half of the tenants (including one voting member) wanted to adopt the fees for minor violations and move on. The other half of the Tenants (full disclosure – I am in this latter group) want to allow Landlords the ability to charge fees, BUT also want to further discuss adding a few reasonable additional protections from abuse.

My experience with my marina landlord when she billed us for a $7 fee we didn’t legally owe is that we contested it and she told us we had to pay it. Our only other recourse, under current law, is to not pay it and take our chances in eviction court where the judge would likely side for us since we truly legally didn’t owe it…but let’s say the Landlord was able to convince the judge that we did owe the $7, either by falsifying documents, or perjuring herself to say that we had verbally agreed to it (stranger things have happened). IF the Judge decides that we owe the $7, then we are EVICTED. We are not given the chance to pay the $7…nope. We are forced to leave the marina. We lose our home. Over $7. Current law. No joke.

Therefore, we simply paid the $7 because we have better things to do than fight a legal battle over $7.

Now imagine the fee your landlord is charging you for a minor violation is $50 and you live on a fixed income AND you don’t owe it.

The following outlines the latter argument for why we need additional protections. Although, at this time, this late in the process, we may not get them this year.

We are about to give Landlords more power and are not adequately protecting Tenants from potential abuses of that additional power.

If we change ORS to allow fees for minor violations, then we are now going to allow ALL Landlords to (1) unilaterally amend rental agreements, (2) charge tenants fees for minor violations (and add a few more violations to ORS such as inoperable vehicles, etc.), and (3) terminate if Tenants don’t pay the noncompliance fees.  Most Landlords do not currently have this power.

Adopting ORS 90.220(9) is just one step towards protecting Tenants from potential abuses that could follow if we allow all Landlords to terminate for the nonpayment a $50 minor violation fee.  

ORS 90.220(9) is the statute that lays out what hierarchical order a Landlord can apply the payments they receive from a tenants. It basically says that a Tenants rent check can only be applied to rent first. In other words, a landlord cannot charge you a fee, then take the fee out of your rent check, thereby making your rent late which can get you evicted.

ORS 90.220(9) does not apply to marina tenancies. Only to apartment tenancies. Our group advocated for adopting this apartment law to apply to marina and park tenancies.

Without ORS 90.220(9), if a Landlord were to charge a noncompliance fee for a minor violation and the tenant didn’t pay it (perhaps they didn’t commit the violation and don’t believe the noncompliance fee is valid), the Landlord could use the Tenant’s rent payment to pay the contested noncompliance fee first.  In this situation, the Landlord’s action causes the Tenant’s full rent payment to be considered “short”, which means, by definition, the Tenant’s rent is not paid. 

When rent is late, it is a Material Violation of the lease.  The Landlord can then issue a 30-day termination for nonpayment of RENT.  So, without 90.220(9), the Landlords have the power to change a situation from being a Termination due to nonpayment of a noncompliance fee for a minor violation into a Material Violation of the rental agreement.  The two cases for Termination are viewed very differently by a judge in an FED case.  The case is then heard before a judge on the grounds of Termination Due to Nonpayment of Rent, when really the causing factor for the termination is not paying the $50 fee for a minor violation.  

When rent is late, it is a Material Violation of the lease.  The Landlord can then issue a 30-day termination for nonpayment of RENT.  So, without 90.220(9), the Landlords have the power to change a situation from being a Termination due to nonpayment of a noncompliance fee for a minor violation into a Material Violation of the rental agreement.  The two cases for Termination are viewed very differently by a judge in an FED case.  The case is then heard before a judge on the grounds of Termination Due to Nonpayment of Rent, when really the causing factor for the termination is not paying the $50 fee for a minor violation.  

And keep in mind that minor violation notices do not require proof or evidence of any kind that a violation actually occurred.  The notices just have to state facts sufficient to communicate the reason for the notice.  So, a minor violation notice could state that “a tenant saw you fail to clean up after your dog.”  So, if you don’t agree that you committed the violation and disagree that the fee is owed, then you could get terminated on the basis of Nonpayment of Rent.  I witnessed a newer tenant get a warning because a “long-time resident saw (his) daughter throw a soda can into the river.”  The accused tenant checked his grocery receipt – he had just moved in that day and just gone to the grocery for the first time and bought the kids one 6-pack of soda, and he had all 6 cans accounted for either in the fridge or the recycling.  He offered to bring the cans and the receipt to the landlord as proof to refute the claim by the “long-time resident” who remained anonymous.  The landlord said that wouldn’t be necessary because she believed her long-term resident over him. There is no proof or evidence required for notices.

Adopting ORS 90.220(9) creates a much-needed separation between terminations for reasons of nonpayment of noncompliance fees (the cause being a minor behavioral violation) and terminations for nonpayment of rent which is a material violation of rental agreements.  

Giving Landlords these additional powers along with keeping the causes for these two types of termination separate – these two changes to the law complement each other and provide for a system of checks and balances that I know will benefit both Landlords and Tenants.

(Landlords said they would be ok adopting ORS 90.220(9) IF they could move fees to the top of the hierarchy, thereby causing tenants who didn’t pay the fees to be evicted.)

I reject the Landlords proposal to change ORS 90.220(9). We would like ORS 90.220(9) to be made applicable to park and marina tenancies as it is written in the statute.

  • Here are 4 reasons I think Tenants and Landlords need ORS 90.220(9) – Order of application of payment.  
    1. It seems that park and marina tenants should have, at the very least, the same protections as apartment tenants, although the second half of Chapter 90 exists because there is a legislative need to provide MORE protections for park/,marina tenancies than apartment tenancies.  Apartment tenants already enjoy the benefits from ORS 90.220(9).  The exemption of park and marina tenancies from ORS 90.220(9) seems to be just an understandable “oversight” as JVL explained (the General Coalition who passed ORS 90.220(9) didn’t want to speak for us).  So currently, park/marina tenancies have less protections than apartment tenancies regrading the order of the application of fees.  We should correct that.
    2. Given that Tenants are on the precipice of allowing Landlords additional ways to exercise control over tenant behavior (spelled out in ORS with clear penalties for minor violations – a power which most Landlords do not currently have), as well as another way to extract fees by the unilateral amendment of leases (another power which they do not currently have), and that Tenants are placing themselves at additional risk for Terminations (for non-payment of noncompliance fees – MOST Tenants are not currently at risk for this category of terminations because noncompliance fees aren’t allowed in their leases), it only seems humane, fair and right that the Tenants should have some sort of understanding and trust about the hierarchy of where their rent checks will go. 
    3. ORS 90.630(1)(e) already authorizes a Landlord to terminate for nonpayment of a noncompliance fee under 90.302(3).  Landlords already have this right.  What the Landlords are now asking for is the right to Terminate on the basis of rent (a Material violation) where the underlying cause is simply a contested minor behavior violation either by (1) not adopting ORS 90.220(9) or (2) by adopting ORS 90.220(9), but altering it such that its protections from Landlord abuses are eliminated. 
    4. What do we think an FED Judge will do when hearing a case where a tenancy is being terminated because the Tenant is short $50 on their rent payment and the Tenant makes the case that he is “short” because he paid rent in full but that the Landlord is applying it to a fee that should never have been charged?  I don’t think the ability to pull noncompliance fees from rent helps the Landlord in front of Judge.  And I don’t think it helps the Tenant either. Re-writing this application order strips this statue of its intended purpose and further muddies the waters of already-complicated FED cases.

Adopting ORS 90.220(9) does not affect a Landlord’s right and ability to Terminate a bad actor Tenant for bad behavior and nonpayment of noncompliance fees.  That ability remains the same regardless of adopting ORS 90.220(9).

In summary, most landlords did not amend rental agreements to allow noncompliance fees (and subsequent terminations for minor violations) when they had the chance.  We are about to give ALL Landlords the ability to Terminate when a Tenant doesn’t agree with (and doesn’t pay) a noncompliance fee for a minor violation – of which no proof or evidence that the violation actually occurred is required.  I think it is reasonable to ask that we have at least one safeguard measure [ORS 90.220(9)] put into place to help protect Tenants against possible abuses of this newly-acquired power.

Unfortunately, the Landlords would not agree to this. Given that we are running out of time to continue to debate this issue, we had to table it for our next meeting. If we cannot come to agreement, we will have to scrap this issue. If we begin scrapping issues, then the Landlords could stop the entire bill.

There are some other things we prosed to improve the issue concept as well. But it is unclear if those will even be heard due to time restraints.

So, cross your fingers for a productive next and FINAL meeting. This portion of the meeting did NOT go well for how late it is in the process. Clearly, there are still issues that require more through debate.

DISPUTE RESOLUTION AND ENFORCEMENT:

It is looking like we have agreement on Dispute Resolution and Enforcement. We agree to mandatory mediation and funding a special counsel to assist tenants with cases that will do the most good to eradicate “bad actor” Landlords.

What Happened at the January 15, 2019, MH Coalition Meeting?

This meeting was held in Salem with John DiLorenzo facilitating.

INFORMATION SHARING:

  • Representative Fahey introduced HB2597 which would allows Park Tenants (excludes marina) to require mediation through the Office of Manufactured Dwelling Park Community Relations on rent increases of more than 2% above the Consumer Price Index. This would be a great benefit to Marina Tenants as well, however, we are not covered under this Office, so I don’t know if that prohibits us from using the service. I will follow up. More info about the Bill can be found here.
  • Representative Fahey also introduced HB2596 which would allows cities and counties to adopt rent controls or limits on rent increases for floating home marinas and parks. This was done in the interest of maintaining some affordable housing. More info about the Bill can be found here.
  • Representative Kotek and others introduced SB608 which limits rent increases for residential tenancies (floating home marinas included!) to one per year. Limits maximum annual rent increase to seven percent above annual change in consumer price index. More info about the Bill can be found here.
  • AND………OUR BILL WAS DROPPED (meaning Introduced) – HOORAY!! Senator Prozanski is sponsoring our Senate Bill (SB) 586. Keep in mind that this current draft reflects language as we stood on the issues on November 12th (we had to meet our Legislative Counsel deadline). So, we will draft amendments that further sharpen our intent. More info about the SB 586 can be found here.

MARINA ISSUES:

If you will recall from last month, we were hoping that we could add the capital gains tax benefit to the marina purchase laws. But the final answer is: No, not at this time. It is too complicated to tackle this late, given the Ways and Means Committee isn’t readily accepting of it, and we cannot risk the entire bill to fight for it with the Ways and Means Committee at this time. So, we will try to open a conversation about it for the following Legislative Session.

Specifically, VanLandingham ran this issue by Taylor Smiley Wolfe, Speaker Kotek’s housing policy advisor. Taylor discussed it with the Speaker and reported back to me that the Speaker would support this only if there is some form of “means-testing” (regarding income) of the marina residents who want to qualify for this exemption and if the buyer is a nonprofit, housing authority, or the equivalent of the Manufactured Dwelling Park Nonprofit Cooperative Corporation; see ORS 62.800 et seq. VanLandingham can’t imagine that a (separate, non-affialated with a marina) nonprofit or housing authority would be interested in acquiring ownership of a marina. And creating the equivalent of the MDPNP co-op statutes would be very difficult to write and even more difficult to sell to the DCBS Division of Financial Services, which was extremely resistant when we created this entity for MH parks in 2007 and revised it in 2009. (This is an uphill battle and we) cannot make the time to work on this (at this late in the game). (Attempting it could) risk the whole coalition bill (the last 2 years of work) on this issue.

So, in summary, we are done making marina issues decisions for our 2019 bill.  If the MH Coalition agrees on the other outstanding issues and proposals a bill, then our Marina Issues will be a part of that 2019 bill!!  THIS IS BIG!!

CONGRATULATIONS MARINA TENANTS!!  WE DID IT!!!!!  

DISPUTE RESOLUTION:

We reviewed Draft 11 of the Dispute Resolution, Enforcement Issue. We have largely come to agreement on the concepts of this idea, summarized here:

  1. BACKGROUND/RECAP:
    • This issue was introduced to the group by a long-time advocate for tenants as a proposed topic for our 2019 Legislative Session in May of 2017 (which coincides with when I first became involved with this group) and it as first discussed with the group on June 20, 2017 in Salem.
    • The concept of the original idea is that there are already great laws on the books. However, it is very costly to litigate (both in terms of money and potential retaliation) when a Tenants rights are being violated by a Landlord.
    • Many park tenants (and marina tenants) are on fixed incomes, retired, older, etc. and oftentimes allow their rights to be violated, rather than “stir the pot” with a Landlord who controls their quality of life. And the cost of litigating is too high.
    • Our objective over the next 21 months was to provide a system, tool, or resource that could help Tenants enforce the laws while reducing personal risk to the Tenants to do so.
    • The issue has evolved and there are now 2 parts: Enforcement (which is essentially what the original objective was) and enhanced Dispute Resolution to offer an additional tool for Tenants and Landlords besides either (a) Landlord-issued Termination Notices (aka Evictions) and (b) Tenants just accepting a reduced quality of life because their Landlord doesn’t want them to do something they want to do.
  2. Here is where we are today with the concept:
    • DISPUTE RESOLUTION:
      • Tenants (and Landlords) will have the right to no-cost mediation services when resolving disputes with Landlords (or Tenants).
      • Both parties will be required to show up to mediation and attempt to mediate “in good faith”.
      • Both parties are not required to come to an agreement. But they must participate and talk and listen.
      • Either party may assign a representative but the representative is required to have the authority to make decisions for the Landlord at the mediations session (short breaks during the session for a representative to make phone calls back to an authoritative source are allowable).
      • Either party can invite an additional person to the mediation as long as the other side agrees. (The idea is that some Tenants may want a support person there so they are less afraid. We also acknowledge that Landlords will likely ask for their attorneys to be their ‘support person’ however, the Tenant does not have to agree to that.).
      • Each party is entitled to a quick scheduling of mediation and is only require to participate in one mediation session per dispute.
      • After receiving a 30-day Termination notice, a Tenant can request mediation as long as the request is made prior to the expiration of that 30-day notice. The parties will be required to mediate before an FED suit is filed but he Landlord. Likewise, If a Landlord requests mediation with a Tenant, that Tenant cannot file a lawsuit against the Landlord until mediation is complete.
      • If the landlord violates this law, then the Tenant is entitled to 1-months rent. If the Landlord does not show up to mediation and/or does not participate in good faith, then the Tenant will have a defense in any lawsuit filed by the Landlord regarding this dispute AND may have the claim dismissed.
      • There will also be mandatory mediation for Tenant versus Tenant disputes (e.g. from the Landlords: Tenant #1 has a child whose ball rolls into Tenant #2’s yard. Tenant #2 takes the ball and won’t give it back. And now, the two tenants’ rift is affecting the quality of life of other tenants.)
      • We will allow Landlords to unilaterally amend the rental agreement to allow mandatory mediation.
    • ENFORCEMENT:
      • We needed some additional tools for 2 reasons:
        • Some Landlord/Tenant disputes are not a good fit for mediation either because they are too complex, controversial, or extreme.
        • Tenants wanted legal representation to enforce some of the laws already on the books.
      • We explored as many as 5 different ways to achieve this and studied other states and what they are doing and what costs are associated with the variety of methods we explored. We arrived at one possible way that we could arrive at a legislative solution.
      • This legislation will be considered “experimental” and will expire in 4 years. This means that, if the way we intend for it to work is successful, then we can extend it or make it permanent. And if not, we can try to fix it, make it better or let it expire.
      • We will create a fund (suggested cap is $50,000 per year) to provide legal representation to Tenants for matters related to Landlord violations of ORS Chapter 90.
      • There will be an oversight committee to guide the process and determine which cases are a good fit (subject matter). The idea is to do the most good with the $50,000 allocated. We don’t intend for this find to be used to take on massive issues that will be tied up in the courts for years. But, rather, the intention is for the money to help cases which could benefit the most tenants and make the most impact regarding Landlords who are bad actors or who continue to ignore the laws.
      • Another benefit of this program is to have 1 attorney who we are, effectively, grooming/supporting who will become VERY familiar with the second have of ORS Chapter 90 (park and marina tenancies). Currently, there are very few attorneys who understand this law and who would take a Tenant case. Most of them represent the Landlord side because that is where the money is. So, this should allow us to grow an individual who is fluent in this niche law.
      • If the Tenant wins the case, prevailing party fees paid by the Landlord will go towards replenishing the fund. If the Landlord wins, the fund will pay the Landlord’s attorneys fees.

TERMINATION OF TENANCY:

We are in agreement to make a distinction between behavior violations resulting in Termination Notices served. Some violations are separate and distinct (not cleaning up after your pet or having a out party) and some are ongoing (having an inoperable vehicle or a barking dog). Landlords and Tenants have largely agreed to separate the two issues (you don’t need 30-days to quit having a party). Apartment tenancies defined the distinction and now we are looking to do the same.

On the Tenant side of this issue, is that we wanted to law to be more clear about what kinds of behavior can result in a Termination notice. Judges and attorneys understand the current law to mean it has to be a Material violation of a lease. But the law doesn’t specify. We want the word “Materially” added to the law.

If we have legislation which discusses material violations of leases (non payment of rents, not keeping your rented space clean), we should also address immaterial or minor violations (not picking up after your pet).

Over the last week, some Tenants and Tenant Advocates have expressed concern over potential landlord abuses regarding the 2 solutions we have proposed to address this: 3 strikes and your are out OR fees for minor violations.

John proposed removing it altogether. Tenants pushed back. It is clear that we need to do a little more work on this.

ORS 90.222(9) was brought up as a possible solution. John will keep working on the draft.

NEXT STEPS:

We are going to have another meeting on February 6, 2019. We will need to wrap up this discussion and ALL other issues then.

What Happened at the December 18, 2018, MH Coalition Meeting?

This meeting was held in Salem with John VanLandingham facilitating.

Information Sharing:

  • The Speaker of the House will reintroduce a bill (former HB 2004) which didn’t pass in 2017 regarding requiring for-cause evictions which will affect apartments, RVs and marinas. It is my understanding that this will only affect marina tenants who are not already covered under the second half of chapter 90 (in other words, not us), but not enough is known about this. In summary, whatever is introduce will likely favor tenants.
  • Update on our draft bill language: Legislative Counsel is in the process of drafting. It has been a slow process. We have a relatively new LC assigned to us. The draft isn’t ready to be shared with this group yet.
  • Bill Process: We will schedule our bill to be introduced, then we will have to amend it to include the remaining parts that we are still debating, then it will be voted on.
  • We have already agreed to Park Closure Sunset extensions for capital gains benefit (Income from sale of park is exempt from taxes).
  • Representative Marsh is looking to introduce a few bills which may affect parks. One topic is about asbestos.
  • Senator Propanski and Representative Nathanson are still working through the workgroup issues for LC 1334 mentioned at last meeting. They will likely introduce LC 1334 as is and then have a workgroup meeting during the legislative session to finalize it before passing it.
  • Representative Boone is interested in scheduling a study group about manufactured housing finance and zoning issues.

DISPUTE RESOLUTION ISSUE:

John reached out to Robert, a CDRC practitioner and mediator, and asked him to provide input on our Dispute Resolution (Mandatory Mediation ) draft to ensure that what we are prosing is practical from an execution standpoint. Robert joined us in person for this portion of the meeting and we took the opportunity to discuss all of his input.

We continued to make great progress on this topic.

  1. As one of the functions of MCRC, MCRC pays the dispute resolution centers to mediate between landlords and tenants as an alternative to litigation. This is paid in part with funding from the assessments.
  2. Previously, there were questions raised about whether or not their are enough Community Dispute Resolution Centers (CDRCs) to provide coverage for mandatory mediation across ALL of Oregon. One county which isn’t served is Columbia County. Previous discussions began leaning toward exempting floating home and park residents in counties which aren’t served by CDRCs from this law. There are about 220 floating home owners in Columbia County alone! We wanted to protect them and offer them mandatory mediation as an alternative to litigation. So, today, it was determined that we had enough funding to allow Mediators to travel to underserved countries such as Columbia County in order for Tenants and Landlords to gain those benefits. Hooray!
  3. One issue we discussed is that the law as we’ve written it, requires both parties to meditate in good faith. But Mediators cannot and won’t evaluate the parties. They must remain impartial and cannot be subpoenaed to testify against one party. So, if a party does not mediate in good faith, it will be up to the accusing party to prove it in court.
  4. Perviously, there was an issue brought up that oftentimes, when Landlords have their property managers mediate for them, that the property managers oftentimes make a decision during mediation, and that after the fact, the Landlords will not abide by or enforce the agreement made by the property manager. So we included language that requires a decision-maker to be the one who comes to mediation. Stepping out for phone calls is ok.
  5. The second major part of this issue is the Enforcement element. We would like to fund an attorney to work on certain cases for tenants which cover issues that are not conducive to mediation. Here are the issues to work through:
    • This will be funded by the MCRC assessment surplus.
    • There will not be a lot of money for this person. And it should be one person so that we can effectively “grow” at least one individual in Oregon who KNOWS this small set of laws.
    • Using other sources such as Legal Aid only serves low income tenants and income isn’t a limiting factor for experiencing “bad actor” Landlords. So it is important to have someone who can serve everyone.
    • Do we limit the fund for this attorney to. let’s say, $50,000 per year? So that the atoner doesn’t eat up the entire MCRC fund.
    • Do we place limits on what cases this attorney can take? If the attorney takes a complicated precedent-setting case, the case could take years with multiple levels of appeals and we’d not have resources available to help thousands of other tenants with smaller cases.
    • Do we limit the scope to only issues about certain limited statute laws? If we target the areas where Tenants have the most problems with Landlords and have the most chance of success, then the fund will do that most good, but many valid tenant issues will not qualify.
    • One limit we know we should impose is that the cases should only cover current tenants. Which does mean that, if our marina laws get passed, once a Tenant enters into a post-eviction storage agreement with the Landlords, then this resource will not be able to help that former Tenant. Any issues arising out of that scenario would have to be paid for by the Tenant if seeking litigation. This appears to be an ok compromise. Otherwise, there could be formerTenants using up a resource that they no longer have an invested interest in positively maintaining.

TREES ISSUE:

We have final conceptual agreement on the Trees issue. This is an issue which does not affect marina tenants, unless you have a hazardous tree growing on your deck. In which case, the Tenant is responsible for maintaining it. If the Tenant fails to do so, the Landlord can remove it.

SUBMETERING ISSUE:

We have final conceptual agreement on the Submetering issue. This is an issue which doesn’t affect many marina Tenants and also doesn’t rank on the list of major marina tenant concerns at this time.

MARINA ISSUES:

We have conceptual agreement on the Marina Issues. If you will recall from last month, we were hoping that we could add the capital gains tax benefit to the marina purchase laws. Angela and DiLorzeno were fairly firm on wanting to include it at the last meeting. So, John Vanlandingham will see what magic he can work.

NEXT STEPS:

  1. We will review our Termination of Tenancy Issue and wrap that up in January.
  2. We need approvals on the entire package of issues by formal vote (4 voting members represent us) as is our process.
  3. We will need a February meeting to vote on the language and elements of the language (since LC is not yet done with the draft) and we are still making changes.
  4. Next meeting: tentatively scheduled for February 6th in Salem.

What Happened at the November 20, 2018, MH Coalition Meeting?

This meeting was held at the Tigard office of Multifamily NW with. John DiLorenzo facilitating.

During information sharing, we learned the following as it relates to marina tenancies:

  1. The 2019 MH Coalition Bill will include 6 topics. Four of these six topics affect floating home owners in rental marinas. They are:
    • The Marina Issues Subcommittee work – see previous blog post for details
    • Dispute Resolution Issue
    • Terminations – changes to the eviction statute
    • Sub-metering: this affects only a small percentage of marinas and does not seem to be a major issues to our tenants at this time
  2. All 6 issues have were given to Legislative Counsel on November 12th (LC’s deadline for us) to begin drafting the actual bill language for us.
    • Our bill language will take the current form of where we were on each of these issues as of November 12th. Because there are still details for us to resolve with these issues, we will need to make out decisions and then do an amendment later.
    • In conclusion, the bill will initially look like these versions – November 12th. If we don’t reach agreement, on a particular issue or the whole package, then the bill won’t go forward as it is introduced, or at all, depending on the status of our agreements.
  3. Other work groups are working on legislation which may affect our laws if passed. We have nothing to do with these groups and have no control over the output of those groups. However, those groups appear to be led my senators and representatives who are trying to improve laws for tenants. Senator Propanski’s workgroup was created because of some issues that he is championing to protect tenants. His work is not guaranteed to make it to a bill, but his work (LC 1334 Draft 2) covers the following:
    • Changing screening for ALL tenants to prohibit Landlords from screening and rejecting tenants on the basis of any prior convictions due to weed use or possession.
    • Amending ORS 90.525 to make it very clear that a Landlord cannot steer a tenant towards using a particular service provider or realtor.
    • Requiring Landlords at the time of evaluation of the prospective tenant or the execution of a rental agreement, whichever is earlier, to provide the tenant with a copy of an informational handout regarding rights of tenants and landlords when a tenant is selling a floating home, in a form proscribed by the Housing and Community Services Department.
    • Allowing a tenant to rent out their floating home while it is for sale IF the landlords also has a floating home on the premises which is actively listed for sale AND being rented.
    • Reducing the time required for a Landlord to accept or reject an application from a prospective purchaser of a floating home from 7 days to 5 days
    • Increasing the penalties for violating certain statue laws (including Terminations by a Landlord) from $200 to $500, and from $500 to $1,000)
    • Extending the Statute of Limitations from 1 year to 2 years for certain violations.
  4. Post-Election:
    • Oregon Democrats now have a Super-Majority in the House which could have a positive outcome for tenant legislation.
    • 1 Senate seat flipped to Democrat which means we will likely see rent caps legislation back on the table again.
  5. We will see Rent Stabilization. We don’t know what form or when, but there is a housing crisis in Oregon right now and there is enough support that it will likely happen.

MH Coalition Issues Discussed:

  1. Marina Issues: Final decisions were made on the following:
    • The new resource will be called the “Manufactured and Floating Home Community Resource Center (MFHCRC)” – we now have representation!!!!!!!
      • This group provides services and information to residents and landlords of manufactured dwelling parks and floating home marinas to promote cooperative community relationships and positive alternatives to the court system. Our confidential, neutral and voluntary services provide assistance in resolving disputes by promoting open communication and a positive environment.
      • Check out the current MCRC website for more through understanding about what this group can help floating home tenant with. THIS IS HUGE!!!!
    • We cleared the $10 assessment procedure with the Assessors office which means we can now have access to this resource, dispute resolution services through the MFHCRC (formerly MCRC), AND our landlords will be required to take marina law landlords training!
      • The marina landlord annual assessments will be based the size of their marinas. We defined small marinas as 20 or less floating homes.
    • Marina Tenants and Landlords would still like to see a Capital Gains tax benefit for Marina Landlords selling their marina to Tenants. However, there are concerns about being able to obtain Ways and Means approval for this in time. Fighting for it at this late in the game could impair our ability to get our bill passed. We will try one more shot and see how difficult getting this would be.
  2. Sub metering was discussed.
    • There is a Submetering subcommittee working on finalizing the issues for us.
  3. Termination of Tenancy was summarized at the end of our meeting. We touched on the following parts of the draft:
    • Currently our draft doesn’t require a Landlord to let a tenant know when they have cured the cause of the termination. Could be problematic because if the Tenant thinks the cause is cured, but the Landlord doesn’t agree, then the Tenant could be “surprised” by an eviction hearing filed.
    • In 2010, this group updated the law to allow Landlords to charge fees for minor violation of the lease, rather than jump to terminations. Most Landlords at the time did not amend their leases to allow fees and therefore cannot charge fees. Those landlords feel they have only 1 tool to prevent minor violations and that is termination.
    • We will continue to address minor violations at the next meeting.
    • A marina landlord brought up “chain barking” as a concerning issue. This is when a dog barks for long periods of time. He would like to see this group address that.

What Happened at the October 31, 2018, Marina Issues Subcommittee Meeting?

Marina owners and floating home owners met on Halloween (Oct 31) in Tigard for what was the last time as the Marina Issues Subcommittee of the Manufactured Housing Coalition.

The group has managed to reach tentative agreement on a number of key issues.  It is important to remember that “tentative agreement” simply means that both landlords and tenants are asking for things and are working on a package deal.  While we reach tentative agreement on certain major issues throughout the process, until the entire package of issues are agreed upon, there are no firm decision on proposed changes to the current laws.

Here are the items that the group has tentatively come to a concensus on:

  1. Include marina landlords and residents in the coverage of the Manufactured Communities Resources Center.
    • We will need a new name – Likely the Manufactured & Marina Communities Resource Center (MMCRC).  Amend ORS 446.543 (and legally the current name is Manufactured Dwelling Park Community Relations Office).
    • We will amend ORS 446.525 to add a requirement that marina residents pay the $10 annual special assessment that MH park residents now pay and that supports MCRC.
    • We still need to review this with the county tax collectors. We will verify its applicability, but we need to also consider offering the same exception for low value floating homes. See ORS 308.250 (2), cancelling property taxes for low value (about $16k) MHs in the four big counties.
    • We will amend ORS 446.515 to .547 to add marinas to the ORS sections on Dispute Resolution for Mobile Home and Manufactured Dwelling Parks. (Note that ORS 90.610 already requires informal dispute resolution for all facility tenancies, which includes marinas – but marina tenants don’t pay for that through MCRC currently.)
    • We may also want to add marinas to ORS 446.380 to .392 regarding (Manufactured Dwelling) Site Information Collection and Distribution by MCRC.
  1. Include marina landlords in the requirement to register annually with MCRC and get four hours of continuing education on L/T and fair housing law every 2 years, amending ORS 90732 to 90.738.
    • This includes paying the current annual registration fee, of $25 for small facilities (20 slips or less) and $50 for larger facilities.
    • Provide for a future effective date for the registration and education requirements, and get MCRC to agree to be lenient initially with enforcement, as marina landlords learn about this.  We are still determining when this will go into effect.  Given that there are only about 40 marina landlords who rent slips, tenants do not feel as though it would be that challenging to get 40 landlords informed of the change.
  1. Include marinas in the current opportunity to purchase statutes, at ORS 90.842 to .850; delete existing ORS 90.805 to .830.
  1. Give tenants the right to enter into a 1-year storage agreement with the marina when they are evicted, provided the tenant moves out, all payments are current and storage payments (equal to rent) are continued to be paid until the house sells to a new tenant.
    • NOTE:  Landlords could not conceive of a way in which they would allow a tenant to keep the home in the slip if the eviction was for nonpayment of rent and the tenant cannot afford to get current with payments.  In those cases, a tenant will have about 70 days to sell their home themselves or else the landlord will take possession of the floating home and dispose of it or sell it for the tenant.  The evicted homeowner will no longer have any control over the sales price.  So, note to floating home owners evicted due to nonpayment of rent: find a way to get current and keep making payments because you do not want your landlord to take your home.
  1. Extended time to repair the float under a floating home. The current laws allow tenants only 60 days to complete required work when a float is in disrepair or else the tenant can be evicted. Since it is impossible to replace a float in 60 days per requirements under ORS 90.632, Landlords have agreed to allow a floating home owner up to 1-year to complete float work when the float is in disrepair but which is not creating an eminent risk or danger to other property.
    • Tenants can chose to get a float inspection to prove that their float is not in need of a repair under ORS 90.632, or as a defense in an eviction case if a Landlord insists they must repairs a float.
    • If the landlord insists that the tenant repair their float in the absence of any float inspection, then the facilitating attorneys suggested that the landlord would still need to prove to an eviction court that the float was in disrepair.
    • While we didn’t get everything tenants asked for, we did get a reasonable amount of time extended to have the float inspected, contact for the work to get done, save up for the expense of the repair (or, give time to sell the home of the tenant cannot afford the work) and then to perform major float work in most cases.
    • Although landlords on the Subcommittee understand that moorages on NE Marina Drive have additional seasonal limitations on work, 1 year is as far as Landlords were willing to give, and that is better than the current impossible 60 day law.  The Subcommittee facilitators/attorneys said that any tenant on NE Marine Drive who has a signed contract with a float contractor to do the necessary repairs within that time period allowed under a revised ORS 90.632, but then later learns that the Columbia River current conditions prevent the contractor from doing the work within the 1-year allowed could use circumstances-beyond-their-control/Act of God as a possible defense if they were to have an eviction suit filed against them.
  1. A landlord’s ability to require a resident to move the floating home within the marina temporarily, under certain circumstances.
    • Both sides agree that the owner would pay for the move and the return, and would give advance notice.
    • The residents wish to have different standards (length of time of the move, and whether reduced rent is required) based on the reason for the move.
      • For temporary relocations of up to 1-month (most of the reasons are 1-2 days moves such as dock work, moving a floating home in next door, minor repairs to an adjacent home, etc.) would be allowed and no compensation will be required the landlord.
      • For temporary relocations of up to 4-months (primarily for dredging work or major repairs to adjacent areas, etc.) would be allowed and no compensation will be required the landlord.  Beyond 4 months, tenants requested compensation for the inconvenience and as an incentive to landlords that tenant homes are retuned to the original location in a timely manner.
    • NOTE: The idea here is that for the first reason, it is just a necessary part of living a floating home that occasionally your home may be in the way or at risk of damage when moving homes into and out of adjacent slips…Landlords need to be able to safely move homes in and out of marinas and not risk damaging other homes in the process.  For the second reason, tenants are largely willing to compromise and allow temporary relocation for reasons such as dredging, because typically, the alternative is that if the landlord does not dredge, homes will hit bottom.  Our tenant group felt that, overall, it was a benefit to them for the landlord to initiate and complete dredging projects (not hitting bottom = homes with more value), and the likelihood of any one home needing to be relocated for the entire 4 months is fairly slim given the largest dredging window is 4 months and homes are typically moved in stages to complete the project. Both groups are still working through the other 2 reasons – more on that below.

NOTE: For issues #2 and #3, the amendments to those statutes would largely consist of replacing “manufactured dwelling park” or “park” with “facility.”

Agreement on the above issues are all very good news for landlords and tenants.

Issues where we have not reached agreement and where we may carve a little bit of time out of the MH Coalition meetings to discuss again and finalize:

  1. A Landlords want the ability to temporarily relocate a floating home when conditions of low water are projected…Tenants, generally, do not wish to hit bottom, but the problem is that Landlords generally would like to relocate a home for longer periods of time and, as one landlord stated, he would like to temporarily relocate a home for “up to 7 years” before moving a tenant back to their original position if certain circumstances required it.  Landlords failed to explain how this is a pressing need and tenants could not agree to allow their homes to be moved for extended periods of time given that property values are tied to the home’s location within the moorage.  No decision was reached.
  2. Landlords want the ability to relocate a floating home when a governmental agency demands it.  Given that there are at least three landlords who are out of compliance with how many floating homes they have allowed in their moorage, this is an issue in which tenants wanted more answers from Landlords.  No decision was reached.

The next steps are that John VanLandingham will now attempt to draft language based on everything that has been agreed to thus far, but also take a stab at attempting proposed bill language for the 2 items that we did not reach a decision point on.  For those 2 remaining pieces, he will take what each side has said and try to draft something both sides can respond to.  The goal is for the proposed draft bill language for all of the issues to get to a point where we can review it and respond or fine-tune it at the next MH Coalition meeting in November…or the December meeting.

Lastly, there was one item that Landlords pulled from our discussion last week just before the meeting.  And that is the topic of Liveaboards. Liveaboards are not defined under ORS and Landlords perviously sought to create a legal definition to avoid confusion.  The day before the meeting, at least one landlord spoke out against the proposed definition that the landlords sought.  So, Landlords are going to meet one more time among themselves to reach an agreement about what it is that they actually want to propose to the group.  So we should also get an update on that at the next MH Coalition meeting.

Because marina tenants and landlords have reached tentative agreement on most of our floating home issues, we will not be meeting again as the Marina Issues Subcommittee.  The Marina Issues Subcommittee is officially disbanded.  At this point, the facilitators feel that we have done enough of the advance hard work that we can bring our agreements to the MH Coalition meetings and discuss anything remaining with the larger tenant landlord group which includes marinas and parks.  So, when you see notices in the future about the MH Coalition meetings, the MH Coalition is now the only venue to attend for floating home owners who wish to express their views and ideas about floating home legislation.

GREAT work, everyone.  And thank you all for participating in protecting your rights.  Our tenant group is growing with every meeting, email, and post.

We look forward to seeing new faces in Tigard next month at the MH Coalition meeting – November 20th.

What Happened at the October 24, 2018, MH Coalition Meeting?

We had a great Manufactured Housing Coalition meeting in Eugene on October 24th.  Together, tenants and landlords of marinas and manufactured housing parks are getting closer to a bill for 2019.

We have asked Senator Prozanski to sponsor our bill and have already submitted to him the topics which we either have already come to an agreement on, or which we believe we are close enough to reach agreement on very soon.

If tenants and landlords can reach agreement before the deadline, then Senator Prozanski will sponsor our bill.

If tenants and landlords cannot reach agreement before the deadline, then we will pull our bill.

With the deadline approaching, now is the time to think through what we really want and need, and make real compromises to get there so that there is a bill which can be voted on in 2019.

Following is a summary of topics we discussed and made some progress on for our 2019 bill.

  1. Extend the sunset on the capital gains exemption for park owners who sell their parks to residents or nonprofits.
  2. Extend the sunset on the $5,000 tax credit for park residents displaced by park closure.
  3. Converting optional mediation between landlords and tenants (see ORS 90.610 (2)) into mandatory mediation, with fees for failing to mediate in good faith; inclusion of tenant versus tenant disputes; add a provision or enforcement by a state agency or private lawyer for a limited number of more serious landlord violations.
  4. Revise/improve the current submeter installation law (ORS 90.531-90.539)
  5. Clarify the current termination stature (ORS 90.630) to require a tenant to cure a distinct/separate violation (e.g., a loud party) right away, rather than at the end of the 30 day notice period (see, e.g., ORS 90.392 (4) (a) (B)); clean up the statute to prevent its use to terminate for minor violations; allow landlords to impose fees instead for minor violations.
  6. Add marina tenancies to coverage by the Manufactured Communities Resource Center for education and mediation purposes, and require marina owners to register with the state and get the same mandatory continuing education that is imposed on park landlords; see ORS 90.732, .734. Also require marina tenants to pay the same annual $10 special assessment that park tenants pay, pursuant to ORS 446.525. (May require a new section regarding floating homes?) – and more which we are working to find agreement on soon
  7. Trees: Amend ORS 90.727 (3) (b) to require that the landlord’s notice to the tenant specify which tree the landlord intends to maintain or fell.

Following is a summary of the day’s discussions which get us closer to agreement.

  1. An overview of topics to be discussed at the Marina Issues Subcommittee meeting on October 31 in Tigard. John VanLandingham will be drafting possible agreement draft bill language before and after that meeting.
  2. Dispute resolution issue – We are making progress in creating a process and language which can be supported by both landlords and tenants.
    • We largely agree to require all rental agreements, current and new, to require mandatory mediation for disputes.
    • We largely agree on mandatory mediation required for
      • (1) tenant-initiated complaints against landlord, even as a reaction to tenant receipt of certain limited termination notices, provided the tenant initiates mediation within a certain amount of time and not as an eviction-delay tactic. Many courts already require mandatory mediation prior to a hearing as it is.
      • (2) tenant-initiated complaints against tenants because the landlords feel responsible for keeping the peace.  An example of a tenant versus tenant issue should be when T-A confiscates a ball belonging to T-B which was thrown into T-A’s yard by T-B and T-A refuses to return it.  Or T-A has a security camera pointed at T-B.  These sorts of issues between neighbors can spiral out of control and Ts ask Ls for assistance.  However, in 2017-18, only 7% of all mediation in parks was T vs. T. And a large percentage of Ts do not show up for voluntary mediation unless there is a consequence.
      • (3) Landlord-initiated complaints against tenants.  Even though Ls have many tools including terminations, it is hoped that providing an ORS tool as an alternative to frightening termination notices will encourage L’s to communicate with their T, rather than jump to sending a termination notice.
      • Marina tenancies would be included, provided the subcommittee reaches agreement (which currently appears as though it should happen)
      • Exceptions: some counties do not have their own dispute resolution centers (DRC), but some are able to use the centers from adjacent counties.  Columbia County is a county that does not have its own center.  Need to verify if Columbia County can use an adjacent county’s center.
      • Process:
        • Complainant must write letter to the person they wish to mediate with, describing the issue, and allowing the other party at least 10 days to respond.
        • A copy of the letter must be given to the MCRC and report the result of the contact before MCRC may refer the matter to a DRC.
        • Request for mediation shall come through MCRC.
        • MCRC may try to resolve the issue themselves.
        • Parties may bring a friend, attorney or support person to mediation – as long as both parties agree.
        • All parties present at the mediation must sign a confidentiality agreement.
        • At least one mediation must take place, but a resolution is not guaranteed.  Both parties must act in good faith.
        • If mediation is successful, require all parties to sign a resolution agreement.
        • Send a copy of signed agreement to MCRC. This could be enforced in court if either party fails to perform.
        • If one party fails to attend mediation, then penalties will be in place. We are currently discussing what those penalties will be – a fee equal to one month rent, and/or an FED defense in eviction court, and/or the ability to not be able to claim prevailing party attorneys fees if the issue goes to court.
    • Some issues will likely be excluded from mandatory mediation – rent increases, park closures, possibly outrageous conduct under 90.396, sale of the park/marina, domestic violence, sexual assault, etc may all be excluded.
    • Issues which are too large or controversial to mediate, we are still working through possible resources who can help low-income tenants get legal help.  We are having a tough time getting an existing agency to be willing to devote resources to this, but we are still exploring a solution.
    • Park tenants currently pay $10 per year and parks landlords pay $25 or $50 (depending on park size) to fund the MCRC and optional mediation program through MCRC.  This has resulted in a surplus so far.  If we make mediation mandatory, our surplus could result in a shortage.  We are considering raising the assessment for landlords to $50 or $100.  Adding the marina tenants and landlords to the MCRC will result in more funds, but also potentially more usage.
    • No final decisions have been made, but we are definitely progressing toward agreement for each of these.
  3. Termination of tenancy/fees issue – 9th draft, dated 9/18/18, previously distributed but not discussed so carried over.
    • We will clarify language in ORS 90.630 regarding the following:
      • We will make it clear that a landlord cannot terminate a lease for minor rule violations.
      • We will make a distinction between ongoing rule infractions and one-time infractions and adjust termination notice times accordingly…for example, you may have 30 days to figure out how to stop your barking dog, but you will have to stop partying loudly immediately to avoid a termination notice.
      • We will require the notice to state whether or not the infraction ins a continuous or ongoing the of infraction – so that it is clear to the tenant when they must stop in order to meet the cure requirements.
      • We will require termination notices to state clearly the time, date, place and circumstance for receiving the termination notice.
      • We will require notices specific at least one option the tenant can do to cure the cause.
      • We are considering treating pets infractions differently so as to not endanger the life of a pet…ceasing unwanted pet behavior (such as barking) within 30 days would often result in giving up the pet or evicting the pet owner.
      • We are considering allowing warning notices and fees as an alternative to termination notices for minor infractions which cause fear in tenants.
      • We will clarify language around committing a second violation, cure timing, and termination.
      • We are discussing requiring that a termination notice can only be sent if there is a material violation OR if the tenant committed the same minor rule violation up to 3 times per year with warnings and established fees paid.
    • We are still working through the complexities of terminating a lease because a tenant didn’t pay fees.  The law allows a park or marina landlord to terminate a lease for nonpayment of a fee, but landlords don’t feel the law is clear enough.
      • We have discussed various solutions including:
        • Providing for escalating fee amounts for nonpayment of fees
        • 3 strikes and you are out rule for nonpayment of fees – no cure
        • Doing nothing and accept that sometimes judges don’t flow the law for either side.
      • This will be discussed further at the next meeting.

We are making great progress for tenant rights in marinas regarding terminations and dispute resolution.  Consider attending the next meeting in Tigard and participating in the process.  It helps to hear from marina tenants and how the various proposed legislative changes affect them specifically.

NEXT SCHEDULED MEETINGS:

***We added an additional January meeting because we are so close and need just  alit more time to finalize all proposed bill language before February of 2019.

  • November 20, Tigard
  • December 18, Salem
  • January 15, Salem

What Happened at the September 18, 2018, MH Coalition Meeting?

Four major items were discussed: Representative Keny-Guyer and Senator Propanski Tenant Bill Workgroup Results, Our 2019 Bill Schedule, Dispute Resolution and Marina Issues Subcommittee Next Steps

I. Representative Keny-Guyer and Senator Propanski Workgroup on Tenant Issues for a 2019 bill

Representative Keny-Guyer and Senator Prozanski held a workgroup in August to discuss issues they want to continue to work through in order to propose a bill for the 2019 legislative session.  These landlord-tenant issues (which are separate from the MH Coalition bill that we are proposing) are as follows:

  1. ORS 90.680 – There is interest in reducing the number of days a landlord has to accept or reject a new tenant application from 10 days to 7 days.  This helps current tenants and prospective floating home buyers by reducing the time it takes a marina to accept the purchase of their floating home as a tenant.  Recall that no floating home purchase can be completed without the landlord approving a prospective tenant, if the home is to remain in its current location.
  2. ORS 90.555 – They are considering making the subleasing of a floating home reciprocal.  If a landlord subleases floating homes in their marina, then they must allow a tenant to do the same when seeking a buyer for their home.  The rationale is that slip rent is still due even if the tenant has vacated the home and the home is on the market.  Without the ability to rent the home, it can be a financial burden on a home owner.
  3. ORS 90.525 – There has been confusion as to whether or not ORS 90.525 allows a tenant to select any realtor they choose to sell their home.  Some landlords have stated that tenants can only use the realtors that the marina owner authorizes  -this is prohibited by ORS. The thought here is to make it very clear that tenants can choose any real estate broker they want.
  4. ORS 90.303 – There is interest in amending ORS 90.303 to disallow marijuana convictions as grounds for denying someone tenancy during prospective tenant screening criteria to make the law consistent with Oregon’s legalization of marijuana.
  5. There is interest in requiring OHCS to prepare an outline of Oregon tenant laws and rights regarding sales and to require landlords to distribute this to current and prospective tenants.  This would be a great thing for tenants, considering most of us did not know laws existed to protect us until this year.
  6. Addressing title fraud for manufactured houses, either by a selling landlord or a selling tenant.
  7. Other possible issues: Statue of Limitations (ORS 12.125), elder abuse, and Enforcement of Landlord Tenant law (the same issues that our MH Coalition has been working through for the last year).

That workgroup will continue to work through these topics – it is assumed that they will try to request a Judiciary Committee bill to address these issues. Our MH Coalition will have a chance to review and comment on their bill, but it will not be an MH Coaltion bill.

 

II. Deadline for our 2019 Bill Topic Submission

The MH Coalition is proposing a bill for the 2019 legislative session.  The deadline for topic submission was September 28th and we submitted the following topics as part of our 2019 Landlord Tenant Bill

  1. Renewing a sunset for the Capital Gains tax break for MH Park owners who sell their parks to tenants (It is possible that floating home owners & marina owners may gain access to this benefit in 2019, so it is good that this recommended extension will be part of our bill.
  2. Renewing the sunset on the $5,000 tax credit for tenant displacement due to MH Park closure.
  3. Dispute Resolution for MH Parks and floating home marinas
  4. Termination/Eviction for nonpayment of fees – There will be some work on which broken marina rules can cause a landlord to evict a tenant and also, now, landlords want to be able to evict tenants for nonpayment of fees.
  5. Sub metering of utilities
  6. Marina Issues – Increasing some of the floating home owner tenant protections up to the level that MH park tenants enjoy as well as a few concessions for marina owners.

III. Dispute Resolution

Discussion continued again on the issue of Dispute Resolution.  The current thinking on the topic follows:

  • Tenant against landlord disputes – mandatory mediation required – landlord required to show up and mediate “in good faith” with mediator and tenant.  Landlord must listen to tenant but does not mean that landlord will agree with tenant.  This service is free.
  • Tenant against tenant complaints – mediation can be requested, but there is no agreement that a landlord can attempt mandatory mediation enforcement by using an eviction notice.
  • Landlord against tenant complaints – landlords already have the eviction tool to get tenants to listen to them.  They do not need mandatory mediation.  Yet, it is good practice for a landlord to talk to a tenant in good standing about issues, rather than just send an eviction notice.
  • Some issues will be excluded from mediation – rents raises, marina closure, etc.
  • Some issues will be too difficult for mediators and will require litigation.  In these cases, we may see if the Department of Justice can help out tenants.

Considerations still to be debated:

  • Should we apply a sunset to this – meaning that whatever we try, will expire in 2 years in case it isn’t resolving the issues.
  • Process
    • Should the first step be to make a complaint with the MCRC?
    • Should the second step that the tenant should write a letter to the landlord to let them know there is a dispute?
    • Intake process could eliminate ones where the law is clearly stated or the tenant is simply on the wrong side of the claim?
    • What are the penalties for not participating in mediation?________________________________________

IV. Marina Issues Next Steps

And finally, at the close of this meeting, there was a brief pow-wow of stakeholders to discuss the marina issues topics.  The facilitators wanted verification from marina tenants and owners that we have consensus enough on the major topics we’ve been discussing that we could have a final Marina Issues Subcommittee meeting and, then, from that, walk away with agreement on draft bill language.  We discussed several topics and noted a few areas of disagreement still that we all need to be diligent in resolving between now and the next meeting.  Expect another blog post coming shortly with more detail.  In the meantime, please put these 2 dates on your floating home owner calendars:

  • Monday, October 22, 2018: 6-9p in St Johns – Floating Home Owner – tenant ONLY meeting. We will use this time to make final decisions about what we can and cannot live without in our bill.  Details to follow and will also be posted on the events page.
  • Wednesday, October 31, 2018: 2-5p in Tigard – Marina Issues Subcommittee meeting – for Floating Home Owners and Marina Owners. Marina Owners and Floating Home Owners will review DRAFT bill language and we will have the chance to make any final adjustments to what we want and what we are willing to give.  Details to follow and will also be posted on the events page.

Rally rally rally – October is an important month for Floating Home Owner rights and the future of our 2019 bill!!  Hope to see you all.

What Happened at the August 14, 2018, MH Coalition Meeting?

The beginning of the meeting is always dedicated to new news and reporting in on current events.  There were 2 relevant things in the discussion which occurred before the main discussion of the MH Coalition – Park/Marina Purchase by Tenants and City of Portland Legislative Initiatives.

PARK/MARINA PURCHASE BY TENANTS

The meeting began with a discussion about park Tenants purchasing their parks.  This is important to us because, if Floating Home Owners get our bill passed during the next legislative session, we will be granted most of the protections and benefits which park Tenants currently enjoy.

The Landlords believe it takes Tenants too long to organize themselves in order to compete to purchase a park. They claim it is faster when a third party just makes an offer.

The obstacles which Tenants face in making an offer faster is that they must organize many residents, determine who is interested in purchasing, who has the money to purchase, find out where they can pull money from, and they need technical assistance…all within a little over a week!

Tenants need 2 additional things in order to make a successful bid at purchasing their parks/marinas.

  1. Technical Assistance: Tenants must figure out how to form and operate a non-profit or other business entity who will own and manage the park/marina. CASA is an association which can help park residents do this, but park law differs currently from marina law.  And, currently, CASA is very busy so they likely will not help marinas at this time.  Also, Tenants need to financial expertise to understand if what they are purchasing is a good deal for them.
  2. Financial Assistance: It takes time to get financials in order for every interested resident in the park/marina. The Housing and Community Services department has a fund to assist park Tenants, but not marina Tenants.  This is largely because it was set up to help people who are on low and fixed incomes.

Some major benefits to owning your slip are:

  1. Your marina can never be sold to another entity or redeveloped for another use = STABILITY, INCREASED PROPERTY VALUE DUE TO DECREASED RISK
  2. HOA fees are typically lower than rents because you are not contributing to the purchase of the marina owner’s children’s college, vacations, or new sports car = LOWER MONTHLY COSTS, HOA FEES ARE INVESTMENTS IN THE MARINA WHICH TRANSLATE TO IMPROVED INFRASTRUCTURE AND TYPICALLY RESULT IN INCREASED PROPERTY VALUES
  3. Tenants control increases in rents = POWER IN DETERMINING FUTURE MONTHLY COSTS
  4. Tenants get voting power to vote on investment in improvements or rule changes = POWER IN SELF-MANAGEMENT
  5. Tenants cannot be “evicted” except in extreme cases of violence or rowdiness, or blatant non-payment of HOA fees = CONTRIBUTES TO MORE ENJOYMENT FROM YOUR HOUSING ARRANGEMENT
  6. Tenants can sell their slips separately from their homes = OFFERS GREATER FLEXIBILITY WHEN YOU WANT TO MAKE A HOUSING CHANGE

It nearly always makes sense for marina Tenants to purchase their marinas, unless in some cases where the infrastructure is old and needs a lot of updating, in which case, those expenses will be incurred by the new owners (the previous tenants, as current owners, will now become responsible for paying for the infrastructure upgrades).  So poorly-maintained marinas will need to be closely evaluated.

PORTLAND LEGISLATIVE INITIATIVES

The City of Portland currently is attempting to change laws around 4 issues related to parks or marinas within the City of Portland boundary.

  1. They would like to create new zoning which would allow for a MH Park to always be a MH Park, never allowing redevelopment.
  2. Requiring mandatory park registration with the City of Portland.
  3. For apartment rentals (and also renters who rent a floating home owner’s home within the City of Portland), further background check regulation is being proposed so that each Tenant must be considered on an individual basis, rather than the a Landlord being able to say that they do not allow anyone who has ever been convicted of a crime.
  4. They are proposing a cap on security deposits (which are returned at the end of a rental period) and fees. ORS limits the charging of fees by a Landlord to only about 9 different things and, according to the MH Coalition facilitator who are attorneys, ORS prohibits the charging of marina move-in/move-out/transfer fees. But marina Landlords continue to do it.  This new proposal for the City of Portland would limit the amounts that can be charged for the acceptable fees.

MH COALITION

TIMELINE – FROM ISSUE TO BILL

The deadline to introduce our topics for legislative consideration is September 28th in order for them to be considered for vote during the next legislative session which begins in January 2019.

Here are the topics the MH Coalition plans on introducing on September 28th:

  1. Addressing the sunset law (a law which goes into effect to test how well the law works, but which has passed with a “sunset” meaning the law will expire unless it is renewed as-is or renewed with proposed changes) on the Capital Gains Tax Exclusion benefit for Park Owners (and hopefully soon, Marina Owners, too!) who sell their parks (future marinas) to their tenants.  They get a valuable tax credit.  If the owner pays taxes to another state other than Oregon, this benefit does not apply.
  2. Addressing another sunset when a park closes, its tenants can apply for a $5,000 tax credit from the state.  This can offset the costs of moving to another facility (and would be woefully inadequate for floating home owners in this situation).
  3. Sub metering. Resolving issues that were accidentally crested during the last laws which were enacted.
  4. Dispute Resolution.  The topic of today’s meeting.  There are good laws on the books to protect park and marina Tenants, but when Tenants have issues with a landlord, there is no remedy except to litigate, while Landlords can resolve their issues with tenant through evictions.
  5. MARINA ISSUES!!!!!!! Woo Hooo!

The issues we are working through in the Marina Issues Subcommittee will be introduced and therefore, will qualify for bill drafting over the next several months.  So, now is the time to participate as much as you can in every meeting.

DISPUTE RESOLUTION

Most of the issues that erupt between Landlords and Tenants are due to lack of communication.  Waiting until you are in a courtroom is too late to begin talking.  But what happens when you are a tenant and you want to talk, but you Landlord refuses?

The goal is to get both parties to talk.  The MH Coalition is proposing mandatory mediation for Landlords and Tenants when requested by a Tenant.  This allows both parties to hear the other side and reduce a possible eviction or legal fees.

After a year of debating this topic, it has become clear that Landlords have an effective legislative tool to get Tenants to do as they wish – evictions.  Tenants need a way to require a Landlord to listen to them and act in good faith.  Mandatory mediation is a reasonable step to improve relations when a tenant feels hopeless in their living situation because of unresolved issues with their Landlord.

There are certain issues which are not good candidates for being resolved through mediation – perhaps the issue is too large.  Maybe the Landlord asked a Tenant to remove something on their rented space which the Tenant felt they had every right to have on their rented space, and then the Landlord removed and destroyed the Tenant’s property after the Tenant refused to remove it.  This is an example of an issue which may be too large to be worked out through mediation.  During the intake process, this may be an issue flagged for litigation.

The intake process requires several steps and oftentimes, the issues can be resolved with just a little education about ORS during intake.

And sometimes, the issues go to mediation.  Mediation does not guarantee your Landlord will agree with you.

The MCRC pays the cost of mediation – it is free for the Tenant to use.  It usually costs the MCRC around $300-360 per dispute.

The MH Coalition agreed that there should be some teeth in performing on the agreement which arises from the mediation session.   For example, if an issue goes to court, the agreement from the trial can be converted to a court order.  If one party does not comply with the agreement, then an Affidavit of Noncompliance can be filed in the court and then it becomes a court order to enforce the original Agreement so that you do not have to go back and repeat the trial.

We wonder what kind of legislative teeth was can add to this sort of a mediation resolution.

MEETING CONCLUSION

The focus of the next few monthly meetings will be to finalize key decisions on Marina Issues/Submetering/Dispute Reolsution, draft bill language acceptable to both Landlords and Tenants, react to drafted language that will become the bill, as well as ensuring that the language doesn’t create new issues for either party or for a stakeholder group not represented by the MH Coalition.

The next MH Coalition Meeting is on September 19th in Salem, 9am-12pm. See ya!!