13 ATTACHMENTS - Laserfiche WebLink

between now and 2017 or 2025, whether the park will continue to be age- restricted„ and if the park remains mostly rental who would oversee rent controls. In addition, Councilmember McGovern said if lots were sold today, she questioned what the cost would be, what the condition of the overall park is at this time, and was there a current budget for monthly operating costs which is being paid for by the owner. Mr. Roush noted the City receives a general accounting on an annual basis from the park owner in terms of showing what the park's expenses are, and he would bring it forward at the next hearing. Councilmember McGovern said she is worried about the homeowners association and how renters have a chance of having say in what the management of the Park would be. Councilmember Sullivan said he agrees with everything he has heard. Unfortunately, the Council did not see the information which was presented to the tenants prior to the vote being taken to help the Council evaluate whether this was sufficient information. However, even with the information heard tonight and the issuance of the Tenant Impact Report, he was not sure if he lived there he would feel like he had enough information to make a decision. He agreed that the survey should be redone, thinks the language of the survey needs to be tightened up, because "do not know" is too broad and open- ended. In this case, the owner is interpreting 41 votes out of 208 as support, which he did not agree with. He also agrees with things Councilmember McGovern suggested. He questioned if there was a limitation or restriction of the City to take a more active role in working with the park owner to identify issues that should be shared with the tenants, and then actually presenting this to the tenants prior to the vote being taken. He thinks the City, working with the park owner, could probably do a better job of making sure that information gets out there. Mr. Roush said this would be up to the park owner and his representatives as to how much cooperation there would be. He hoped that the Council's comments will be taken to heart and that the park owner would work closely with the City to prepare a packet of information, schedule meetings, and conduct outreach so there was a more concerted effort to provide information to residents such that a more informed decision could be made. Councilmember Sullivan questioned if this could be conditioned in the motion, that the City will participate in the process. Mr. Roush said if the item is being continued with Council direction for the City to work with the park owner and park representatives to obtain this information, if that direction is not well received or not successful, staff will return to the Council and indicate this. Then the Council will have to make a decision as to whether to approve or deny the project. He is hoping the Council's comments will be taken well by the park owner and that the effort can occur so the Council has the information it feels it needs to make a more informed decision. Councilmember Sullivan said he hoped the property owner would take this to heart so that when the item returns to the Council, the Council can feel comfortable that all information was provided and people were given an opportunity to make an informed decision. Vice Mayor Cook- Kallio said she did not understand it as fully as she would like, appreciates the fact that the applicant has answered many of the questions, but she has the benefit of a staff report and people to whom she can ask questions. She asked the park owner and his representative to work with the City and if this is truly a benefit, this should be communicated to residents. In addition, she also thinks that there are ways to construct a survey and asked for the owner to help the Council and residents understand the issues so that the best decision possible can be made.