Legislature(2001 - 2002)
02/13/2002 01:12 PM House JUD
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SB 6 - MOBILE HOME PARK EVICTION NOTICE Number 1731 CHAIR ROKEBERG announced that the next order of business would be CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 6(FIN), "An Act relating to required notice of eviction to mobile home park dwellers and tenants before redevelopment of the park." He noted that there is a proposed committee substitute (CS) available for the committee to consider. Number 1750 SENATOR JOHNNY ELLIS, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor, said that through the work that the House Judiciary Standing Committee has done, the proposed CS is a better product. As background, he said that [the concept of] SB 6 was brought to him by the Catholic Archdiocese of Anchorage, the United Way, and representatives of Catholic Social Services after hundreds of people from his community were made homeless in a single mobile-home-park redevelopment project. Relaying the concern of the social services agencies and the churches in Anchorage, he said: If we didn't have better policies toward mobile home park evictions, as the economy grows and people find better use for the land and hope to redevelop it for higher and better uses - especially commercial development - [there would be] ... a significant reduction in the housing stock for low-income or affordable housing, [and] a lot of people could be homeless. SENATOR ELLIS noted that the people who could become homeless are disabled people, "low-income people," and elderly folks, and that their becoming homeless would lead to all kinds of social ills and welfare dependency. Therefore, he said, "We as a community and as a state should try and be more proactive about this [issue]." He mentioned that SB 6 passed the Senate with bipartisan support, and that the original SB 6 was a larger, more expansive proposal that would have changed the mobile home eviction-notice requirement to 365 days - currently that requirement is 180 days - unless the developer paid up to $5,000 of actual, documented expenses for relocation of the mobile home. He relayed that the developers that spoke in favor of [that version of] SB 6 thought that [option] was a good way to satisfy their obligations and enable them get on with their projects even though actual relocation costs are significantly greater than $5,000. SENATOR ELLIS noted that when SB 6 "came over to the House," Chair Rokeberg had relayed his concerns regarding private property rights and smaller mobile home park owners across the state. After hearing those concerns, Senator Ellis said that he worked with the "church folks," the mobile home park folks, and the developers, and came up with the proposed CS. Number 1880 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN moved to adopt the proposed committee substitute (CS) for SB 6, version 22-LS0216\W, Kurtz, 2/11/02, as a work draft. There being no objection, Version W was before the committee. SENATOR ELLIS relayed that Chair Rokeberg had suggested that instead of blanketing the entire state with the requirement for developers to pay compensation or give a year's notice, SB 6 could be simplified so that it proposes a 270-day notice requirement, which is less than the 365-day requirement that the Senate proposed and greater than the 180-day requirement in current statute, and that any local government that would like to set up its own relocation fund be allowed to do so through local ordinance. Senator Ellis explained that local governments could work out the details of how such a fund would be financed. Surprisingly, he noted, some of the private sector folks said that they would like the state to set up the fund with state dollars so that developers wouldn't have to pay any sort of fee or pay for any change in the assessed valuation. SENATOR ELLIS noted that Chair Rokeberg "shot that down rather quickly, and said there will be no state fund because there is no likelihood of new state money for such a program." CHAIR ROKEBERG remarked that that is old "Alaska-think" - that the state will be able to pay for everything. SENATOR ELLIS explained that since there will be no state- administered fund and no state funding, Version W provides for the option of allowing local governments to set up their own funds at the local level. Hence this is not an un-funded mandate; it is just an option giving local governments the ability to create their own fund if they decide that there should be compensation to folks moving on to other housing arrangements. He also pointed out that Version W, in addition to providing a 270-day-eviction-notice requirement, prohibits eviction of a mobile home park resident during the winter months; everybody on all sides of this issue agreed that it is hard enough to move a mobile home without having to do so in the winter. CHAIR ROKEBERG offered that the funding for a local relocation fund could come from the revenue differential between the prior zoning and the new zoning, as well as from contributions made by the community itself. He noted, therefore, that this local funding option is mostly applicable to larger communities although smaller communities could set up such a fund as well. He mentioned that he still has concerns with changing the notice requirement from 180 days to 270 days because that would then become the standard for eviction notices. SENATOR ELLIS said that he believed that the 270-day requirement would only apply to mobile home parks. The current 180-day requirement for all other types of evictions would remain the same. In response to questions, he reiterated that in addition to the 270-day requirement for mobile home parks, no one could be evicted from a mobile home park during the winter months, which is a prohibition not currently in law. He noted that a number of states have a 365-day requirement, as was proposed in a Senate version of SB 6, and that almost all states have statutes relating specifically to mobile home park evictions because of the special nature of mobile home parks and their redevelopment. Number 2124 TYSON FICK, Staff to Senator Johnny Ellis, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor of SB 6, added that changing the current 180-day requirement to 270 days is a separate issue from prohibiting an eviction during the winter months. Current statute does not make any provision regarding what time of year someone can be evicted, he added. CHAIR ROKEBERG noted that if Version W were amended back to a 180-day requirement, it would not affect the wintertime prohibition. Number 2158 BEN MARSH, Manager, Alaska Manufactured Housing Association (AMHA), testified via teleconference and said that the AMHA feels that it represents the mobile home industry to a large extent. He said that after looking over Version W, the AMHA has some comments. He explained that he polled his members and found that there "is some heartburn over the 270-day notice" because members feel that it creates a hardship on anybody who owns this type of land and needs to have it [redeveloped]. To have a 270-day notice requirement pushes things quite far into the future and developers are less likely to proceed. He added that the AMHA [passed] a resolution that favors the current statutory 180-day notice. MR. MARSH said that the AMHA does not have any objection to the quit date being limited to between May 1st and October 15th. "That would seem to be reasonable, and everybody can live with that," he added. He noted, however, that the AMHA doesn't see any real value in having the language that says: "a municipality may establish a mobile home relocation fund...." He opined that a municipality doesn't need permission from the state to establish such a fund, and therefore the language is superfluous, particularly since the state is no longer going to require a developer to pay $5,000 to every tenant as was proposed in an earlier version of SB 6. MR. MARSH urged the committee to be cautious in placing too many restrictions on people's property rights. On the issue of municipalities establishing relocation funds, he said that this concept is very important to [the AMHA], and that they sincerely hope that such can be done "although we don't have any real hope that it will happen this year [but] maybe it'll happen over a period of time if we bend our efforts in that direction." He added that the [AMHA] hopes that there will be some way for the state to participate in this problem; "it's a social problem and it shouldn't be placed entirely on the shoulders of mobile court owners." MR. MARSH, in closing, noted that he is not aware of any new mobile home courts being created in the last 12 years, and that restrictions and regulations such as those found in SB 6 tend to discourage anybody from doing so. Mobile home courts are an important part of affordable housing in Alaska, he remarked, and there is a real shortage of mobile home spaces at the present time. "We see these mobile home courts disappearing from sight, and we don't know where people are going to put mobile homes if they all [close down due to redevelopment]," he added. Number 2378 ANGELA LISTON, Catholic Archdiocese of Anchorage, testified via teleconference and mentioned that she was on the mobile home task force in Anchorage. She noted that she has worked with the tenants and with the [mobile home] park owners in trying to come up with some solution to this problem. "We did originally propose the relocation fund," which all the parties - the tenants, the park owners - were willing to contribute to. She said that as SB 6 stands now, [the parties] absolutely support the quit date provision prohibiting evictions during the winter months. MS. LISTON said, with regard to changing the notice from 180 days to 270 days, that if the state is not creating a relocation fund, then the tenants absolutely need at least 270 days. And [that time frame] is needed not just to relocate but also to secure the funds that are necessary to make that relocation happen. She opined that seven months is probably the least [amount of time] that would be necessary to raise $5,000 for relocation. She noted that she would feel a lot better about it if "we had some information from the municipalities that in fact the funds would be set up. She said that she supports the quit date provision as written, and asked that the 270-day notice provision remain in place. REPRESENTATIVE MEYER noted that during his service on the assembly, "this was always a major issue and very controversial." He said he recalled that with the bigger developments, the city was requiring the "developers to pay to help move some of the mobile homes; ... I thought is was up to $5,000." MS. LISTON clarified that that was never required of the developers; they were simply encouraged to do it. CHAIR ROKEBERG noted that this decision was reached during community council meetings. He noted, however, that not every developer "has as deep a pocket" as those that were able to help with relocation costs. REPRESENTATIVE MEYER indicated that he agreed with Ms. Liston regarding the need for the 270-day notice provision. TAPE 02-17, SIDE B Number 2490 JEWEL JONES, Director, Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), Municipality of Anchorage, testified via teleconference and said that the DHHS has certainly had a great deal of experience with homeless issues, with affordable housing issues, and specifically with "the first notice of a movement with the Alaskan Village trailer park." The DHHS was also involved in the establishment of the mobile home task force, she said, adding that she participated in many of its discussions. MS. JONES, referring to Version W, said that it is much more palatable and workable for the municipality, and that the DHHS encourages its passage. She remarked that the DHHS, too, is concerned about notices [to quit the property] being given during a period of time in which the end of that period is in the winter. Moving a mobile home is, at best, a very difficult and expensive process, she noted. Many people living in mobile homes are there because they can't afford any other form of housing. In addition, mobile home living does afford a way for many people to achieve the American dream of having a place of their own; mobile homes certainly do hold that promise for many people, and the DHHS supports that. MS. JONES noted, as Mr. Marsh did, that there aren't new mobile home parks being developed, and that she has been made aware of another mobile home park - Lahonda Trailer Court - in the Anchorage area "that will be going away." She mentioned, however, that in addition to the lack of suitable new locations, even if there were to be a relocation fund, many mobile homes are in such bad condition and so old that they could not be moved regardless of how much money is spent to move them; they would just fall apart. She suggested that a human impact statement could assist the municipality in determining the overall effects that some of these redevelopments have on the community. MS. JONES indicated a preference for the language in Version W that allows but does not mandate municipalities to establish local relocation funds, although she is not sure yet where "all of those dollars" would come from. She noted that the local municipality, the DHHS, and the planning department have been working with - and will continue to work with - some of the smaller mobile home parks should they become candidates for redevelopment. Number 2302 SENATOR ELLIS said that he appreciates all the work that Ms. Jones has done on this issue. After noting that Mr. Marsh has indicated a preference for the 180-day-notice requirement, and that Ms. Liston prefers the 270-day requirement, Senator Ellis asked Ms. Jones what her "take on that" is, in terms of how much time lower-income folks need to plan and save up money for a relocation. MS. JONES said that the DHHS has not given a lot of thought to that issue, but she personally thinks that the longer period of time would be the most helpful, particularly for low-income people. Because the average cost of moving a mobile home ranges between $5,000 and $8,000, and even if money is available from a relocation fund, tenants must still raise quite a bit of money, which takes time; therefore, 270 days is a reasonable amount of time, she opined. MR. MARSH added that 270 days is much better than the 365 days that was proposed in an earlier version of SB 6. CHAIR ROKEBERG closed public testimony on SB 6. REPRESENTATIVE MEYER opined that SB 6 is a good bill, and that the 270-day requirement is a good compromise that everybody can live with. REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL agreed that SB 6 is a good bill. He added, however, that based on personal experience, he thinks "180 days is doable," particularly since language in the bill allows for either the lease or the municipality to stipulate a longer time frame. The way Version W is currently written, he noted, a tenant could have a notice period of 270 days plus a winter. CHAIR ROKEBERG added that that would amount to over a year. REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL opined that lowering the notice period back to 180 days would be fine. He recounted that when he had to move from a mobile home park in the early '80s, it cost him $2,800 to move his trailer; he also had to meet a notice period of less than 100 days, which was tough, but he did it. Number 2136 REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL made a motion to adopt Amendment 1: on page 2, line 6, delete "270" and insert "180". Number 2130 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ objected. He said that it seems to him that the people working on this issue have already compromised, and the result is the 270-day-notice period. CHAIR ROKEBERG noted that the existing statute has a 180-day notice period, and that 270 days is nine months. The heart of the bill, he opined, is the restriction on giving notice during the winter months. He reiterated that the 270-day period coupled with the wintertime restriction could result in a time frame that is longer than a year. REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ pointed out that 270 days is a compromise from 365 days. REPRESENTATIVE MEYER said that he agrees with Representative Berkowitz. According to his experience in Anchorage, he relayed, the longer the notice period, the better, "because we are talking about low-income people here, and a lot of them have been in these places for 30 years - all their lives - and now to all of sudden say, 'Okay, you've got to get up and move,' that in itself is very traumatic to them." From having watched the progression of SB 6 in the Senate, he recounted, the developers seemed to be okay with 365 days since it takes awhile to arrange for financing and contractors; therefore, 270 days is doable and is a compromise compared to 365 days. CHAIR ROKEBERG said that from a commercial real estate standpoint, he disagrees with Representative Meyer on the issue of how long it might take to mobilize a project. REPRESENTATIVE MEYER offered that since no developers have come forth to testify, they must not be in opposition to the 270-day- notice requirement. CHAIR ROKEBERG surmised that the bigger developers that did testify during previous hearings of SB 6 - the "deep-pocket developers" - were just happy to be able to go forth with their projects, but most of the developers that will be affected by SB 6 are small in comparison. Number 1914 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES indicated agreement with Chair Rokeberg, and remarked that with the shrinking of the economy, the number of investors has also decreased. She suggested that it wouldn't be the big developers that will be taking on future redevelopment projects; it will be the smaller developers. She said that she did not think that 270 days, by itself, is too long a period of time, but when coupled with the wintertime restriction, it can become an extensive period of time. She opined that aside from going to a 365-day provision, which wouldn't be encumbered by a seasonal restriction, 180 days is the maximum that would be needed when coupled with the wintertime restriction. She said that her inclination is to go to the shorter period of time - 180 days. CHAIR ROKEBERG said that it is conceivable that there could be a notice period of [over] 15 months. REPRESENTATIVE MEYER said that according to his experience, developers "pretty much have this figured out, so that the 270 days would be the maximum; they would give notice so that it is the 270 days and it includes the winter months." REPRESENTATIVE JAMES reiterated that she thinks 180 days is better so as not to discourage development. SENATOR ELLIS pointed out that the current statutory timeframe of 180 days has not proved adequate in the situations considered by the task force. The genesis for SB 6 was that 180 days was not sufficient for folks to save up enough money to move their mobile homes and avoid going to the homeless shelter and becoming welfare cases, he added. And while not all of the residents of mobile home parks are low-income, a significant proportion of them are, and many tend to be elderly, he noted. And although there might be a better number than 270, he said, 180 days has not proved adequate. REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL noted that the difference between the original SB 6 and Version W is that the latter includes "the municipality in that discussion," so if the municipality decides that the time frame is not long enough, it can be extended. Number 1666 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ, after noting that he has been involved in commercial real estate transactions and is interested in the economic development of Alaska, offered that fundamentally, SB 6 is about protecting people who live in mobile home parks, and that the discussion heard thus far - that 180 days is adequate - seems to focus on the developers' side of the equation. He continued: One of our responsibilities [is] to bring a little balance to this debate, and the balance side of what the developers require is what the mobile home residents require. Representative Coghill spoke of his own example, and Representative Coghill, just by dint of being here, has demonstrated that he has some wherewithal, and I don't think that everybody who's in a mobile home park, at least not in my experience, has the ability to get up and move easily: people on fixed income, people ... with pets who might have a difficult time. We ought to be mindful of the fact that these are tough economic times out there for a good number of our constituents, and we ought to be careful that we don't put them in a position where they don't have a place to go. So I would suggest that while you're factoring in whether 180 days or 270 days is appropriate, you think about what serves the people - the common people. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES opined that what Representative Berkowitz said "is very real and is our concern." Nonetheless, she added, Alaska is a big state; as long as municipalities have the ability to alter the time period, as is proposed in Version W, that issue should be decided at the local level. SENATOR ELLIS asked Chair Rokeberg to hold SB 6 in order to gather more information regarding the "interplay between the landlord-tenant law, which is a state law, and the municipalities' ability to add on to or override the state landlord-tenant law in terms of mobile home park evictions." REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ acknowledged that if the provision in SB 6 which says a municipality can extend the notice period is in conflict with existing state law, it could create problems. CHAIR ROKEBERG acknowledged that that [provision] is ambiguous. He noted that Representative Coghill's motion to adopt Amendment 1 is still before the committee. Number 1450 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ made a motion to lay on the table the motion to adopt Amendment 1. REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ withdrew the motion to lay on the table the motion to adopt Amendment 1. Number 1436 REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL withdrew the motion to adopt Amendment 1. CHAIR ROKEBERG announced that SB 6 would be held over.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|