Search

Such shifts in the American population will bring significant changes to America - from the way products and services are developed and marketed to this expanding audience to the types of homes people will choose to purchase - including where these homes are located. When baby boomers choose to relocate/downsize from their existing "McMansion" homes, they will have a wider variety of housing options to choose from than today's senior home owners. Manufactured home builders and land"lease manufactured home communities will find themselves in an increasingly competitive housing marketplace where innovation and creativity are essential to success.

Housing Realities and Impacts

Forty"six percent of all households in America are headed by baby boomers (45"64 years old). If you add in those already aged 65 years or older, the number of these senior households grows to 60 percent. According to METLIFE Insurance Company, a large percentage of these heads of households will be grandparents. Due to economic necessity, many grandparents will be financially supporting their children and grandchildren, including having their children and grandchildren live with them. At the other extreme, 20 percent of these seniors will be living alone (this jumps to 38 percent of seniors over the age of 75). Because their children delayed having children until later in life, more of these seniors living alone also will have grandchildren who visit frequently.

Approximately 35 percent of Americans over the age of 65 rely almost entirely on Social Security payments for income, with the average Social Security benefit for a retired worker in 2011 about $1,177.00 per month. The Council on Aging estimates that while many aging Americans perceive their health as excellent or good, the reality is that most older adults have at least one chronic condition and many have multiple conditions. Older Americans spend approximately 13 percent of their total expenditures on health - more than twice the proportion spent by all consumers.

So what do these demographic changes mean for an owner of a land"lease manufactured home community? According to the U.S. Census Bureau's 2010 report, manufactured home community owners should expect the following housing impacts: expect people to double up or share their homes by renting rooms; they will have less income available to deal with higher utility bills and the need to financially support their extended families; and more home"bound residents will not have the option or won't be able to afford other living arrangements.

The impacts and challenges continue. Are 55+ communities realistic considering the need to allow extended or non" traditional families in manufactured home communities? Does offering homes for rent in these communities make economic sense? Should communities build playgrounds (maybe with adult exercise equipment) as a way of making them more family"friendly? Should people be allowed to rent rooms in their homes? Can duplex manufactured homes be developed to replace older homes in communities? Are manufactured homes able to accommodate residents who want to "age in place" in their homes? What kind of "assisted living" rental income homes with "age"in"place" technologies will keep residents in their communities longer?

Innovative Approaches and Solutions

The Newport Pacific Family of Companies is a manufactured home community, marina and apartment property management firm, managing properties and home owner associations in five states stretching across the country. Its full"service property management strategies have one goal: to create successful communities and increase their value for owners and residents alike. It has been a pioneer in addressing many of the issues created by an aging population within manufactured home communities.

Mike Sullivan, CEO and principal of Newport Pacific Capital and President of Cirus Development, is a certified property manager, a California General Contractor and a manufactured home retailer. As former President of the Board of Directors of the Western Mobilehome Park Owners Association (WMA) and President of the Santa Clara County Manufactured Housing Education Trust, Sullivan has an extensive understanding and appreciation of the challenges facing land" lease community owners.

Sullivan explains that land"lease community owners face an increasing problem as community residents get older. "One of my communities was facing the situation where it lost 10 residents in one month, 18 percent of its residents in one quarter, and the children of the deceased residents had stopped paying space rent," Sullivan noted. "We had to be creative in order to stem the problems this community faced." Another fact he uncovered in his research was that their original 55+ aged residents (now 75 to 85 years old and older) were being marketed to heavily by the local assisted"living companies surrounding their communities. "We had become the feeder lot for these organizations," said Sullivan.

Newport Pacific created a subsidiary, Lifestyle Services, Inc., to develop solutions that could address the many issues being raised by an aging resident population. Its Lifestyle Services Concierge Service helps seniors stay in their homes longer by helping them retain their independence as long as possible. The service assists residents with tasks that they can't easily do - or at all - any more. Additionally, the service offers family members who can't be with their aging loved ones as often as they would like the peace of mind of knowing that they are being well"cared"for. Services include housekeeping and yard maintenance, running errands and handyman services, and modified house sitting services.

Another approach has been the development of technologies such as the "Close"By" Network that provides in"home monitoring and reporting of behavioral patterns like eating, sleeping and medication use directly to the doctors of the aging residents. The service also allows routine medical tests, such as blood pressure, to be performed directly in the resident's home, enabling doctors to monitor the procedures and results via direct video links. "It's a virtual doctor's office," said Sullivan. The service can even be expanded to offer in"community services in a community's clubhouse.

Next Steps Forward

One of the company's more innovative approaches has been the development of its Net Zero model home and electric car. Newport Pacific's sister companies, Modular Lifestyles and Cirus Development, began developing and building "Net Zero Green" homes in 2008 for a new 62+ community, Oak Haven, located in Ojai, CA. The new modular homes incorporated maximum energy"efficiency technologies that operate at or near "Net Zero" energy use. The home has a home energy rating system at the factory that is 21 percent better than standard"built homes. The homes are 90 percent constructed in the factory, with minimal waste and the onsite work requiring only two 8x8x8 dumpsters.

The first model of this new generation of homes was placed in the community in 2008 and proved to be quite successful. The community began filling up with these innovative homes within two years, and won the 2011 MHI "Homes Under 1800 Square Foot" award category with Cavco Industries.

When Florence Roach's Santa Barbara condominium sold the first day on the market, she knew that her decision to move was a good one. Considering her future retirement, Florence had wanted a less expensive place to live and maintain. With her daughter living in Ojai, Florence checked out Oak Haven's advertising claims of "low cost" living with "green" solar"powered, energy"efficient modular homes. Florence was sold on the Ojai Valley and purchased one of Modular Lifestyle's homes.

Before coming to Ojai, Florence had experienced respiratory problems that could come on without notice along with allergies and osteoarthritis. Since moving into her new home, she has had unexpected health improvements which she attributes to the dry heat and the less toxic interior environment of her new home. The whole"house fan in the new home continuously replaces the home's interior air with filtered air.

The homes include extra ceiling, wall and floor insulation that keeps their interior temperature moderate, with Florence's electric and gas bills at or near zero every month, even during her first hot summer in Ojai. These are the kinds of operating costs she can afford for the future. In fact, from July 2011 to July 2012 she has a cumulative negative $19.50 credit on her electric bill.

The company then turned its focus to developing and building its "Quest" home. These solar"powered, energy" efficient modular homes also include other energy"saving features such as tankless water heaters and propane"powered generators so that the homes are virtually independent of outside electrical service. Due to the high number of 30" and 50"amp "mobile home parks," this home solves the overall issue of aging infrastructure.

New Thinking

Senior communities, such as Oak Haven, are proving that land"lease communities are well"positioned for the upcoming Baby Boomer population explosion and have a unique opportunity unlike any other multi"family housing project. They have existing facilities that can be upgraded to incorporate services and products that more directly appeal to seniors. But to be successful, land"lease communities must embrace the changing housing marketplace with creative thinking and innovation. By doing so, land"lease communities can compete with and be attractive alternatives to the newly" built senior apartments and assisted"living developments. The reality of the generational changes taking place in the housing marketplace requires new thinking and new approaches...all at a very accelerated pace of just a few short years.

Example: In 2013, a Washington public housing community fought off a fair housing complaint filed by a resident who was threatened with eviction for feeding pigeons and allowing them to nest on his deck. The community’s rules prohibited the feeding of stray animals and wildlife, so he received several warnings that he’d be evicted if he didn’t stop. He eventually complied and no further action was taken against him, but the resident sued the community for discriminating against him because of his race. He failed to prove that he was being falsely accused since he admitted that he allowed the pigeons to nest on his deck. And the court rejected his claim that nonminority residents fed the pigeons and were not disciplined, noting that other residents viewed the pigeons as a nuisance and were trying to get rid of them in various ways, including poison [Bahati v. Seattle Housing Authority, September 2013].

To ward off fair housing trouble, it’s a good idea to have a written policy detailing your standards of conduct so all prospects, residents, and staff members understand what behaviors constitute lease violations. Putting it down on paper heads off claims that the resident didn’t know about the rules or understand the consequences of breaking them.

Make sure that your rules conform to state and local requirements by asking your attorney for help in drafting a policy that defines what conduct is considered a lease violation. Make the rules as specific as possible—for example, by quantifying how many times an act must be committed before it’s considered a lease violation, how much time you’ll give a resident to correct his behavior, and so on. Your policy should also detail the procedures for investigating, resolving, and documenting complaints against residents for violating the lease and community rules.

Good evening everyone. This story just broke in "The Oregonian" this evening. We have been talking about this since the February 2016 Legislative Session. Clearly this is a brutal reality that we all will be facing in 2017. If you were not concerned - you certainly should be now. In all likelihood we will have a long, vicious legislative fight on our hands. MHCO will definitely be in the trenches and will need all of you to be involved.

By Dana Tims | The Oregonian/OregonLive 
Email the author | Follow on Twitter 
on September 13, 2016 at 12:45 PM, updated September 13, 2016 at 6:38 PM
House Speaker Tina Kotek, signaling fresh urgency for tackling Oregon's housing crisis, said she will push next year to end no-cause evictions, lift the state's ban on rent-control laws and ban all rent increases above a "reasonable" percentage for the foreseeable future. 

Kotek laid out those policy goals in an address Monday night to the Oregon Opportunity Network, a supportive advocacy group that lobbies for affordable housing and renter protections. 

But Kotek, according to a transcript of her remarks, said she fully expects the proposals will spark controversy. 

"Frankly, it means things are going to get uncomfortable," the North Portland Democrat told the gathering of housing advocates. "Discomfort and determination are necessary when dealing with a crisis. We all need to be up to the task." 


Kotek and House Democrats had considered pushing further, before deciding to wait to try policy ideas such as extending notice periods for no-cause lease terminations. 

At the time, Kotek told The Oregonian/OregonLive she was warning lawmakers, "you're coming back in 2017 and we're going to talk about no-cause notices and evictions. We need to level the playing field for tenants." 

She then, she said Monday, things have only gotten worse, both in Portland and across the state. Rents have continued to rise, even as builders add thousands of units to address a longstanding shortage of supply. Demand has further been stoked by affluent workers, some arriving from out of state, willing to pay a premium to rent in high-end buildings. 

"Whole apartment buildings are seeing rents go up by 20 percent, or 30 percent, or more," she said. "Evictions have skyrocketed as some owners make way for new tenants with bigger salaries, or evict entire buildings with plans to renovate and join the luxury apartment market." 

Kotek explicitly called for lifting Oregon's ban on letting local governments pass rent-control ordinances, calling the practice "rent stabilization." 

Rent control is a controversial tool that lets local or state governments impose a price ceiling. 

"We can no longer avoid this discussion," she added. "We need to prevent property owners from making excessive profit and protect tenants from economic eviction and displacement." 

She also promised to fight for a statewide ban on "rent increases above a reasonable percentage until the housing crisis subsides." 

"Frankly, it means things are going to get uncomfortable," House Speaker Tina Kotek said. Kotek's office said the specifics of what constitutes a "reasonable percentage" or how long such a measure might be in effect will continue to be refined between now and the January start of the 2017 legislative session. 

Some immediately took issue with Kotek's housing initiatives, arguing such steps would make it more costly for builders to meet the state's housing demand. 

"It's almost textbook that any form of rent control ultimately harms consumers, as well as landlords," said Eric Fruits, an economist and editor of Portland State University's Center for Real Estate quarterly reports. "It may benefit some in the short term, but in the longer term, there will be fewer units available to rent, which will only make matters worse." 

Instead, Fruits said, the free market should be allowed to work, with higher prices sending signals to developers that more units are needed. 

Affordable-housing advocates disagreed, saying a surge in evictions of lower-income people is serious enough to demand a policy solution. 

"We are seeing signification numbers of folks having to move farther and farther out from the metro area to find affordable housing," said Rev. Joseph Santos-Lyons, executive director of the Asian Pacific American Network of Oregon. "I talked with one member last night who can't even find a place in Gresham. Places long thought to be affordable for renters and first-time buyers are disappearing." 

Santos-Lyons said he'd like to see Kotek's call for a temporary cap on statewide rent increases made permanent. 

"The average family could certainly understand that something like a 3 percent increase would be reasonable," he said. "But as it is, what we're seeing is unfettered speculation." Katrina Holland, interim director of the Community Alliance of Tenants, said her office just learned that rents in one Southwest Portland apartment complex are scheduled to increase by 350 percent. 

"This is clearly something that we need to address," she said. "It's time to act." 
-- Dana Tims 
 

House Bill 3054A affects four sections of Oregon’s manufactured housing  laws. Below is a summary of the changes.

ORS 90.324 (Calculation of maximum rent increases). The text in bold print is new:

1.   No later than September 30th of each year, the Oregon Department of Administrative Services shall calculate the maximum annual rent increase percentage allowed for the followingcalendar year:

(a) For tenancies subject to ORS 90.600(1)[1] in facilities with more than 30 spaces, assix percent.

(b) For tenancies subject to ORS 90.600 (1) in facilities with 30 or fewer spaces or for tenancies subject to ORS 90.323,[2] as the lesser of: (A) Ten percent; or (B) Seven percent plusCPI.

2.   No later than September 30th of each year, the Oregon Department of AdministrativeServices shall publish the maximum annual rent increase percentages allowed under thissection, along with the provisions of ORS 90.323 and 90.600, in a press release.

3. The term “CPI” means the September annual 12-month average change in theConsumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers, West Region (All Items), as most recentlypublished by the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the United States Department of Labor.

Comment: This change bifurcates rent caps for MHP month-to-month tenancies into those with more than 30 spaces and those with 30 or fewer spaces. For those with over 30 spaces, the rent cap is six percent (6.00%) and for 30 or less it is the lesser of 10.00% or 7.00% plus CPI.

///

///

///

ORS 90.545 (Fixed term tenancy expiration). The text in bold print is new:

A landlord’s proposed new rental agreement may include new or revised terms, conditions, rulesor regulations, if the new or revised terms, conditions, rules or regulations:***Are consistent withthe rights and remedies provided to tenants under this chapter, including the right to keep a petpursuant to ORS 90.530 and limits on rent increases under ORS 90.600 (1);

Comment: Prior to HB 3054, , the legislative drafters overlooked leases (i.e., “fixed term tenancies”). The result was that landlords using leases were not limited in their rent formulas (within reason at least) by the same caps as month-to-month tenancies. This new legislation eliminates that oversight, and subjects rental increases in leases to the same rental caps found in month-to-month tenancies.

Since the effective date of this Bill is September 1, 2025, landlords may wish to consider putting their new tenants on fixed term leases before then. This is not to suggest that the rent formulas should be open-ended without limits or guidelines. But a well- drafted rent formula based upon reasonable and objective criteria should survive attack. After all, before the caps, there were never any limits on rent increases (other than the existing good faith provision under ORS 90.130.)

ORS 90.600 (Increases in rent). The text in bold print is new:

A rent increase is not subject to [the rent cap for month-to-month tenancies] if:

***[It] is:

(A) For a facility with more than 30 spaces;

(B) Not greater than 12 percent;

(C) In lieu of and not in addition to a rent increase allowed within the 12-month period asdescribed [above];

(D) Occurring at least five years following a previous rent increase authorized under this paragraph, if any;

(E) Related to a significant project to add, replace, repair or upgrade infrastructure for thefacility;

(F) Approved by a written affirmative vote of 51 percent of the spaces in the facility that areoccupied by tenants on a vote that contains the signature and identifies the space of the voter;

(G) Approved by votes ***that are collected:

(i) At least 30 days after the landlord has provided in writing to each tenant the proposedinfrastructure project, a documented estimate of the cost of the project, an estimated timeline for the start and completion date for the project and the estimate of the rentincrease necessary to cover the cost of the improvement; and

(ii) At least 14 days after the landlord has met with the tenants to discuss the proposal; and

(H) Fully refunded to tenants by the landlord, without demand, less the maximumallowable rent increase under ORS 90.324, if the project is not substantially completed asdescribed [above] in the notice [described above] within 12 months of the estimatedcompletion date in the notice.

(4) A landlord that increases rent in violation of [this subsection] *** shall be liable to the tenant inan amount equal to three months’ rent plus actual damages suffered by the tenant.

Comment:  The purpose of this new text is self-explanatory. It provides an exception to the rent increase statute for communities with over 30 spaces to recover the cost of adding, replacing, repairing or upgrading park infrastructure.

ORS 90.680 (Sale of home on rental space). The text in bold print is new:

A landlord may not require that a selling tenant, prospective purchaser or purchaser consentto the inspection of the interior of the dwelling or home or obtain an inspection of theinterior of the dwelling or home by a third party, including as a condition of:

(a) Acceptance of the [required] notice of sale under subsection (8)(a) of this section;

(b) Approval of a sale under this section; or

(c) Approval of a new tenancy by the purchaser.

Comment: Not having been present during the negotiations of this Bill, I cannot explain its rationale. I will attempt to find out more. But since I participated in the (now discontinued)  landlord-tenant coalitions, I cannot resist the following observation: ORS 90.740(4)(c) imposes upon tenants the duty to “Keep the dwelling or home, and the rented space, safe from the hazards of fire.” (Emphasis added.) This is a required tenant duty to the landlord. So today when the home sells, if the owner had made dangerous non-code wiring alterations to its interior, those risks can be discovered by a required inspection upon transfer. Then the tenant and prospective purchaser can reach agreement upon bringing the wiring up to code and averting electrical fires.

It is for that reason that the current MHCO Rental and Lease Agreements provides that as a condition of landlord’s consent, the homeowner/seller must provide

“…a copy of a current written inspection report from an Oregon-certified and licensed Home inspector, verifying that as of the date of the inspection: (a) the Home, including, but not limited to all heating, cooling, and electrical systems and all appliances located therein, are safe from the hazards of fire; (b) the Home has one or more smoke alarms approved under applicable law, and, where applicable, one or more carbon monoxide alarms****The cost of this inspection shall be the responsibility of the TENANT, but may be negotiated with the prospective purchaser as part of the sale transaction.”

By prohibiting professional inspections upon resale, it would seem HB 3054 creates the risk that dangerous conditions such as defective wiring and resulting fire hazards will be perpetuated. Fire endangers not just the new purchaser but the entire community.

Going forward, landlords may wish to consider including an inspection advisory to all prospective purchasers emphasizing the importance of home inspections prior to closing a sale. While this cannot make inspections a condition of landlord’s consent to the sale, it can certainly encourage the practice.

The above information is general in nature and should not be construed as legal advice. MHCO Members should consult with their own attorney if they have any questions or concerns on the above legislation.

[1]  ORS 90.600(1) applies to tenancies that are governed by ORS 90.505 – 90.850, the manufactured housing statutes.

[2]  ORS 90.323 applies to tenancies that are not governed by ORS 90.505 – 90.850, the manufactured housing statutes.

HB 3443 adds “bias crime” as defined by ORS 147.380, ORS 166.155, and ORS 166.165 to a number of different statutes in the ORLTA. The term “bias crime” is added to all statutes that previously addressed tenant-impacts of domestic violence, sexual assault and stalking. Terminations for domestic violence, sexual assault, bias crime, and stalking are extremely detailed. Landlord should consult their attorney before taking any termination action regarding allegations of the aforementioned criminal acts.

ORS 90.100 – The term “bias crime” is added to the ORLTA definitions section. A bias crime is defined as the commission, attempted commission, or alleged commission, of an offense as described below:

ORS 166.155 (1) A person commits a bias crime in the second degree if the person:

(a)  Tampers or interferes with property, having no right to do so nor reasonable ground to believe that the person has such right, with the intent to cause substantial inconvenience to another person because of the person’s perception of the other person’s race, color, religion, gender identity, sexual orientation, disability or national origin;

(b) Intentionally subjects another person to offensive physical contact because of the person’s perception of the other person’s race, color, religion, gender identity, sexual orientation, disability or national origin; or

(c)  Intentionally, because of the person’s perception of race, color, religion, gender identity, sexual orientation, disability or national origin of another person or of a member of the other person’s family, subjects the other person to alarm by threatening:

(A) To inflict serious physical injury upon or to commit a felony affecting the other person, or a member of the other person’s family; or

(B) To cause substantial damage to the property of the other person or of a member of the other person’s family.

ORS 166.165 (1) A person commits a bias crime in the first degree if the person:

(a)  Intentionally, knowingly or recklessly causes physical injury to another person because of the person’s perception of the other person’s race, color, religion, gender identity, sexual orientation, disability or national origin;

(b) With criminal negligence causes physical injury to another person by means of a deadly weapon because of the person’s perception of the other person’s race, color, religion, gender identity, sexual orientation, disability or national origin; or

(c)  Intentionally, because of the person’s perception of another person’s race, color, religion, gender identity, sexual orientation, disability or national origin, places another person in fear of imminent serious physical injury.

ORS 90.325 is amended to clarify that tenants may not be held responsible for damages to the premises caused by the perpetrator of a bias crime. To avoid liability for damage the tenant may be required to provide verification that the tenant or a member of the tenant’s household was a victim of a bias crime.

ORS 90.445 is amended to clarify that perpetration of a bias crime against a household member who is also a tenant is grounds for 24-hour termination notice. The landlord may evict the perpetrator while still leaving other tenants on the lease. If the perpetrator of the bias crime does not leave the premises, the landlord may seek a court order to remove them under ORS 105.128 without terminating the other tenants in the unit.

ORS 90.449 is amended to state that a landlord may not terminate or fail to renew a tenancy, serve a notice to terminate a tenancy, bring or threaten to bring an action for possession, increase rent, decrease services or refuse to enter into a rental agreement with:

• A person who is or has been a victim of a bias crime;
• A person who has violated the rental agreement or the provisions of ORS 90.449 because they have been the victim of a bias crime;
• Because of criminal activity or emergency response related to a situation in which the tenant or applicant is a victim of a bias crime.

Additionally, a landlord may not impose different rules, conditions or standards or selectively enforce rules, conditions or standards against a tenant or applicant on the basis that the tenant or applicant is or has been a victim a bias crime.

However, landlords may terminate the tenancy of a victim of a bias crime if the landlord has previously given the tenant a warning about the behavior of the perpetrator and:

• the tenant has allowed the perpetrator to remain on the premises while an imminent or actual threat to others; or
• the perpetrator is an unauthorized occupant, and the tenant has allowed them to remain on the premises without the permission of the landlord.

If a tenant mounts a successful defense to an eviction action under ORS 90.449 the tenant will not be entitled to a prevailing party fee and/or attorney fees costs or disbursements if it the landlord can demonstrate

• that at the time the action was initiated the landlord did not know, or have reason to know, that the action was based on a bias crime incident; and
• upon discovering that the action was based on a bias crime incident, the landlord promptly removed all others except the perpetrator from the action.

ORS 90.453 is amended to:

• add “bias crime” to the definition of non-perpetrating immediate family members of a crime victim;
• add the phrase “employee of the Department of Justice division providing victim and survivor services” to the definition of a “qualified third party;”
• include the phrase “a copy of a federal agency or state, local or tribal police report regarding [a] bias crime” to the definition of “verification;”
• expand the definition of “victim service providers” to include nonprofit agencies that address bias crimes; and
• provide that a tenant who wishes to terminate their own lease due to being the victim of a bias crime needs to provide either a valid order of protection or verification of a bias crime committed against the tenant within 90 days of the self-termination notice.

The Qualified Third-Party Verification Form under ORS 90.453(3) has also been amended to add “bias crime” to the list of harms against a tenant or member of their household.

ORS 90.456 specifies that the tenancy will continue for any tenants who have not been removed for perpetrating a bias crime or have not been released from the lease due to being a victim. Fees, deposits, and prepaid rent for victims and perpetrators are to be accounted for at the time the tenants surrender possession.

ORS 90.459 adds “bias crime” to the list of harms for which a tenant may provide actual notice and request a change of locks. Verification is not required. If the perpetrator is also a tenant the landlord must see a court order removing the perpetrator before changing the locks.

ORS 90.767 is amended to specify that unless specified in a mediation policy created under this statute, or agreed to by all parties, no one, except the victim, may initiate mediation of a dispute regarding allegations of a bias crime.

In the case of the tenant/resident who already occupies a space in a community without a Rental Agreement, a written agreement should be prepared and presented to the tenant for signature. The written agreement should incorporate the basic provisions of the existing oral agreement. If the tenant refuses to sign the agreement try to find out the basis of the tenant's objection. If changes can be made that are satisfactory to you and the tenant, then the changes should be made in agreement, initialed, signed and dated. If the tenant still refuses to sign the Rental Agreement, whether changed or not, you should give or mail the tenant a copy of the Rental Agreement that the tenant/resident refused to sign. The date of the mailing or delivery should be indicated on both your copy and the tenant's copy. If mailed, keep a copy of the cover letter that you send along with the tenant's copy of the Rental Agreement. You cannot force a resident to sign a rental agreement if they have been living in the community without a rental agreement.

ORS 90.710 (2) (d) allows, "Notwithstanding ORS 41.580 (1), if a landlord and tenant mutually agree on the terms of an oral agreement for renting residential property, but the tenant refuses to sign a written memorandum of that agreement after it has been reduced to writing by the landlord and offered to the tenant for the tenant's signature, the oral agreement shall be enforceable notwithstanding the tenant's refusal to sign". 

Answer: It is unclear to me whether your complaint is with the housing authority running the voucher program or the tenant using the program.

I do not recommend you refusing to allow Section 8 housing applicants. ORS 59A.421 (Discrimination in selling, renting or leasing real property prohibited) provides:

(2) A person may not, because of the race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, national origin, marital status, familial status or source of income of any person:

(a) Refuse to sell, lease or rent any real property to a purchaser. This paragraph does not prevent a person from refusing to lease or rent real property to a prospective renter or prospective lessee:

(A) Based upon the past conduct of a prospective renter or prospective lessee provided the refusal to lease or rent based on past conduct is consistent with local, state and federal law, including but not limited to fair housing laws; or

(B) Based upon the prospective renter's or prospective lessee's inability to pay rent, taking into account the value of the prospective renter's or prospective lessee's local, state and federal housing assistance, provided the refusal to lease or rent based on inability to pay rent is consistent with local, state and federal law, including but not limited to fair housing laws. (Emphasis added.)

This means that landlords it is permissible to screen and reject any applicant, including those with a Section 8 voucher, for past conduct and ability to pay rent. But they may not be rejected simply because they use Section 8 vouchers.

There is a required contract between the landlord and the public housing authority (called the Housing Assistance Payment Contractor "HAP Contract"), which lists the landlord's rights and responsibilities. Part of he HAP Contract, called the Tenancy Addendum, becomes a part of he rental agreement between the Section 8 tenant and the landlord.

The local housing authority does not guarantee the tenant's performance, and will not have screened the applicant for his or her suitability as a tenant - that is the landlord's responsibility. However, a Section 8 voucher tenant's failure to pay his or her portion of the rent or to comply with rules regarding maintenance of the property can lead to termination of the tenant from the Section 8 voucher program.

There are two sources of rental payments; the tenant pays approximately 30%-40% percent of the rent (with some exceptions) and the housing authority pays the balance. This leads me to believe that your issue is with the tenant, not the program. If the tenant is blaming the program, that is something they need to take up with the housing authority. If you are not getting the rent payments from the housing authority you should contact them.

A tenant's failure to pay their share of the rent, or being consistently late, can jeopardize their right to continue to receive a Section 8 voucher. You are not required to accept partial rent. If the public authority pays its share, but the tenant does not, you may file for eviction. However, before doing so, you should contact an attorney familiar with Section 8 housing issues.

1. A landlord may charge a screening fee solely to cover the costs of obtaining information on the applicant.  The landlord must provide the applicant with a receipt for any such screening fee.
2. A landlord may not charge non-refundable fees to secure a signing of a rental agreement.
3. A landlord may charge a deposit to an applicant for the purpose of securing the execution of a rental agreement after the applicant's application has been approved.   If the rental agreement is executed, the landlord shall either apply the deposit toward the moneys due the landlord under the rental agreement or refund it immediately to the tenant/resident.
4. If the Rental Agreement is not executed due to a failure by the applicant to comply with the agreement to execute, the landlord may retain the deposit.
5. If the Rental Agreement is not executed due to a failure by the resident to comply with the agreement to execute, then the landlord shall return the deposit to the applicant within four days.

 A landlord may charge a fee more than once, at the beginning of or during the tenancy, for:

1. A late rent payment
2. A dishonored check
3. Removal or tampering with a properly functioning smoke alarm or smoke detector
4. Any other noncompliance by the tenant with a written rental agreement that provides for a fee for that noncompliance, provided that the fee is not excessive.

Answer:   All good questions. Let’s look at each document.

Changes to the Rules and Regulations. Pursuant to ORS 90.610(3), a landlord may propose changes in rules or regulations, including changes that make a substantial modification of the landlords bargain with a resident.  This is done by giving written notice of the proposed rule change, and unless residents of at least 51 percent of the eligible spaces in the facility object in writing within 30 days of the date the notice was served, the change shall become effective for all residents of those spaces on a date not less than 60 days after the date that the notice was served by the landlord.

One resident per eligible space may object to the rule change through either:

• A signed and dated written communication to the landlord; or
• A petition format that is signed and dated by residents of eligible spaces and that includes a copy of the proposed rule or regulation and a copy of the notice.

If a resident of an eligible space signs both a written communication to the landlord and a petition, or signs more than one written communication or petition, only the latest signature of the resident may be counted.

A proxy may be used only if a resident has a disability that prevents the resident from objecting to the rule or regulation change in writing.

The landlord’s notice of a proposed rule change must be given in the same manner as other notices. See, ORS 90.155 (Service or delivery of written notice) and must include:

• Language of the existing rule or regulation and the language that would be added or deleted by the proposed rule or regulation change; and
• A statement substantially following the text set forth in subsection 90.610(7)(b)in the following form, with all blank spaces in the notice to be filled in by the landlord:

Unless residents of at least 51 percent of the eligible spaces object, the proposed rule will go into effect on a date that is at least 60 days plus three additional days, if mailed regular first class mail, from the date of mailing.

There are additional provisions of the statute, so owners and managers contemplating a rule change should become familiar with all of them.

Changes to the Statement of Policy.  Every landlord who rents a space for a manufactured dwelling (or floating home) is required to provide a written statement of policy to prospective and existing residents. The purpose of the statement of policy is to provide disclosure of the landlord’s policies to prospective residents and to existing residents who have not previously received a statement of policy. The statement of policy is not a part of the rental agreement.

The statement of policy must contain the following information in summary form:

• The location and approximate size of the space to be rented.
• The federal fair-housing age classification and present zoning that affect the use of the rented space.
• The community policy regarding rent adjustment and a rent history for the space to be rented. The rent history must, at a minimum, show the rent amounts on January 1 of each of the five preceding calendar years or during the length of the landlord’s ownership, leasing or subleasing of the facility, whichever period is shorter.
• The personal property, services and facilities that are provided by the landlord.
• The installation charges that are imposed by the landlord and the installation fees that are imposed by government agencies.
• The community policy regarding rental agreement termination including, but not limited to, park closure.
• The community policy regarding on-site sales.
• The community policy regarding informal dispute resolution.
• The utilities and services that are available, the name of the person furnishing them and the name of the person responsible for payment.
• If a residents association exists, a one-page summary about the association. The residents association is required to provide the summary to the landlord.
• Any community policy requiring removal of a home, including a statement that removal requirements may impact the market value of a home.
• Any facility policy regarding the planting of trees on the rented space.

The rental agreement and rules and regulations are required to be attached as an exhibit to the statement of policy. If the recipient of the statement of policy is an existing resident, the rental agreement attached to the statement of policy must be a copy of the one entered by the landlord and resident.

Here are the delivery requirements:

• Landlords are required to give prospective residents a copy of the statement of policy before the residents sign their rental agreement.
• Existing residents who have not previously received a copy of the statement of policy and who are on month-to-month rental agreements must receive a copy of the statement of policy at the time of a 90-day notice of a rent increase is issued.
• All other existing residents who have not previously received a copy of the statement of policy, a copy of the statement of policy upon the expiration of their rental agreements and before the residents sign new agreements. [Note: This provision refers to residents on fixed term leases.]

As you can see from the above discussion, the statement of policy statute makes no provision for amendment or change.  That isn’t to say it cannot be changed, however.  Assuming that your statement of policy only addresses the required policies listed above, it would be my suggestion that if one or more of those policies change, you should change your statement of policy accordingly, and reissue it to all of the residents. 

For example, assume that your community has held itself out as a family park under federal and state fair housing laws, but in fact, could qualify under the 80% rule as a 55+ park.  Under certain circumstances, by a rule change, it could convert to a 55+ community. In that case, you would want to change your statement of policy accordingly.

As for other changes, either due to Oregon law, or rule changes, if they are not on the required list of items to be addressed in the statement of policy, I see no reason to change the existing statement of policy.  However, if your statement of policy addresses additional items, and one or more of them are impacted by a change in Oregon law or the community rules, I would recommend amending your statement of policy accordingly.

Changes to the Rental Agreement or Lease. Pursuant to ORS 90.510(4) landlords are required to provide a written rental agreement to their residents.  It must be signed by the landlord and resident and may not be unilaterally amended by one of the parties to the contract except by:

• Mutual agreement of the parties;
• Actions taken pursuant to ORS 90.530 (Pets in facilities),90.533 (Conversion of billing method for garbage collection and disposal), 90.537 (Conversion of billing method for utility or service charges), 90.543 (Utility or service charge billing for large manufactured dwelling parks) (3), 90.600 (Increases in rent), 90.725 (Landlord or agent access to rented space) (3)(f) and (7) or 90.727(Maintenance of trees in rented spaces); or
• Those provisions required by changes in statute or ordinance.

The rental agreement must specify:

• The location and approximate size of the rented space;
• The federal fair-housing age classification;
• The rent per month;
• All personal property, services and facilities to be provided by the landlord;
• All security deposits, fees and installation charges imposed by the landlord;
• Any community policy regarding the planting of trees on the rented space;
• Improvements that the resident may or must make to the rental space, including plant materials and landscaping;
• Provisions for dealing with improvements to the rental space at the termination of the tenancy;
• Any conditions the landlord applies in approving a purchaser of a home as a resident in the event the resident elects to sell the home. Those conditions must be in conformance with state and federal law and may include, but are not limited to, conditions as to pets, number of occupants and screening or admission criteria;
• A provision that the resident may not sell the their home to a person who intends to leave it on the rental space until the landlord has accepted the person as a resident;
• The term of the tenancy;
• The process by which the rental agreement or rules and regulations may be changed; and
• The process by which the landlord or resident shall give notices to each other.

Thus, for those residents in your community on periodic tenancies, e.g. month-to-month rental agreements, you may not change the terms of their contract except in the limited instances listed above.  Clearly, you may do so, if required by statute or ordinance. For the past several years, most changes to Oregon’s manufactured housing rental laws, provide whether the rental agreement may be “unilaterally amended” to accommodate the change.

Note that under ORS 90.545, Oregon law allows “fixed term tenancies” i.e. leases.  Under this law, it is much easier to change all three of the community documents.  Although leases may be not less than two years, at least 60 days prior to the end of the term, the landlord may give the resident a new set of community documents. Although there are certain restrictions found at subsection (3), they are not onerous.  Essentially, you are permitted to give existing residents on lease the same documents as you are currently giving new residents.  You do not have to follow the rule change statute, and do not need permission from the resident to change their rental agreement. The same thing applies to the statement of policy.  It is for this reason that I am a proponent of short term, e.g. two to five year leases; they allow landlords to update their community documents as the laws and regulations change.