Laserfiche WebLink
Memo to the Mayor and City Council <br />November 18, 9196 <br /> <br />Page 3 <br /> <br />The park owner must notify residents of the park and the "local planning <br />agency" 9 months prior to the park closing and/or conversion to another <br />use. <br /> <br /><> A resident may not be required to vacate the park until 60 days following <br /> conclusion of the public hearing. <br /> <br />Residents of the park must be notified by the park owner with a 45-day <br />written notice that the purchaser of the park is intending to close the park <br />or convert it to another use. <br /> <br />Staff and the city attorney's office have reviewed the closure statement <br />provided by Earl and Lorraine Hohlen. It appears the information provided <br />to the city and residents is in compliance with state statute for closing the <br />mobile home park. <br /> <br />Although the park owner has provided the residents estimated costs for <br />relocation, no where is it mentioned that relocation costs will be paid to the <br />park residents. As previously mentioned, state statutes requires the park <br />owner to provide payment ff residents move beyond the 25 mile radius. <br /> <br />What is the role o£ the City through this process? <br /> <br />The city attorney has advised staff that the statute allows the city council a <br />great deal of latitude in terms of the Council's involvement. Basically, there <br />are three roles that the Council may wish to consider to facilitate the closure <br />process: <br /> <br />1) <br /> <br />the Council may merely hold a public hearing and direct the park <br />owner to follow state statutes to close the park. This approach would <br />require the park owner to work directly with the park residents in <br />accordance with all state statute requirements to close the park. <br />Under this scenario, the Council would comply with statutes for <br />closing the park by conducting a public hearing, but would not be <br />involved to any greater extent. <br /> <br />2) <br /> <br />The Council may wish to act as a "monitoring agent" and require the <br />park owner to report back to the City Council on the status of <br />compliance at intervals or at the completion of the park closure. The <br />park owner could still be responsible for negotiating with the park <br />residents; however, the Council would have a limited role assuring the <br />closure takes place in accordance with state statute. <br /> <br />s:\council\gp96-2.doc <br /> <br /> <br />