Laserfiche WebLink
opportunity to purchase the land upon which their homes sit. This conversion would not require any <br />physical change to the property, alter the senior status of the park, or affect the rents currently <br />charged under the rent stabilization agreement until the first sale of the lots take place 10 years in <br />the future. <br /> <br />The Council first considered the request in May 2009, at which time it expressed concern that <br />residents needed more information regarding the proposal and directed staff to work with the <br />property owner to conduct additional outreach. Thereafter, staff arranged for two meetings with park <br />residents, providing an opportunity for the residents to ask any questions not otherwise answered <br />by a “Common Questions and Answers” document that had also been distributed to the residents. <br />Following those meetings, residents were sent a survey asking for support or opposition of the <br />conversion as well as an explanation as to why. The City received 139 responses to the 208 <br />surveys sent out and the overwhelming majority were not in favor of conversion. The most common <br />concerns expressed included lack of interest in purchasing a lot, inability to obtain a loan as a <br />senior, and the potential for increased rents. <br /> <br />Mr. Roush stated that staff continues to recommend the Council approve this application, reversing <br />the decision of the Planning Commission, because of the uncertainty in the way the current state <br />law reads. He said the owner has complied with what appears to be the letter of the law and there is <br />support for that reading of the law in the only appellate decision rendered on the matter to date. He <br />noted that approving this application would defer for 10 years the sale of any lots and that any <br />existing residents will be able to remain in the park indefinitely and continue to pay the rent currently <br />provided in the rent stabilization agreement. Upon the sale of the first lot, those residents qualifying <br />as lower-income households would continue to pay regulated rent. <br /> <br />Mr. Roush stated that the Council previously acted to support legislation that would strengthen local <br />control over mobile home rent conversions and would also support other public entities’ litigation <br />efforts to exercise increased controls over such conversions. He reported that the legislation is still <br />pending and should it pass, staff would recommend the Council bring forth an ordinance providing <br />the ability to regulate these type conversions. <br /> <br />Vice-Mayor Cook-Kallio questioned where the item currently is in the legislature and when <br />resolution was expected. <br /> <br />Mr. Roush said it was last amended in late July but is still in committee. <br /> <br />Councilmember Thorne questioned how monthly income is calculated in the determination of low- <br />income and if income such as IRA distributions is considered. <br /> <br />Mr. Roush stated that any income generated from an asset, such as stock dividends or IRA <br />distributions, is considered income. <br /> <br />Councilmember McGovern requested the results of the latest survey sent to park residents. <br /> <br />Mr. Roush said the City received 139 responses of the 208 surveys that were sent and of that, 118 <br />were opposed to conversion. <br /> <br />Vice-Mayor Cook-Kallio questioned how market value would be determined for the lots that were <br />not subject to low-income rent thresholds. <br /> <br /> <br />City Council Minutes Page 4 of 11 August 18, 2009 <br /> <br /> <br />