Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-23-1985 MHRRB MinutesJ� c1ty san luis oBispo ffift ■ HUMAN RELATIONS COMMISSION =7-::�- ��=4K' Post Office Box 8100 • San Luis Obispo, CA 93403.8100 • 549-7150 M I N U T E S MOBILE HOME RENT REVIEW BOARD October 23, 1985 SECRETARY'S NOTE: Due to problems with the taping of this meeting, some segments were not recorded. These missing segments are noted throughout the minutes. Those persons who made statements at this meeting which are not included in these minutes and who would like them included in the minutes of the November,6, 1985 meeting, are invited to submit them in writing or by telephone to me at P.O. Box 459, Avila Beach, 93424. Telephone: 595-2244 (TAPE 1) CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Tom Swem at 9:15 a.m. in the City Hall Council Chamber. Chairperson Swem introduced Board Members Naoma Wright, Gaye Benson, Patricia Barlow and Denny Wheeler. STAFF PRESENT: Roger Picquet and Steve Henderson. AGENDA: Chairperson Swem reviewed today's Agenda which includes Approval of Minutes, Packet Review, Presentation by Chuck Hughes of the Western Mobilehome Association and the review of Consideration of Ordinance Adjustments. ADDENDUM TO AGENDA: Review of Findings (October 17, 1985) as submitted by Staff and Subcommittee. REVIEW OF PACKET: Steve Henderson noted the contents of the packet presented to the Board by Staff: Minutes of the October 3, 1985 meeting, Annual Report (Mobilehome Park Rent Review Board Summary Report) as submitted by Chairperson Tom Swem, revision of application MHI1RB 10/23/85 Page 2 form as submitted by Subcommittee members Gaye Benson and Denny Wheeler, updated copy of Ordinance, copy of Senate Bill 1352 (Greene) as requested in meeting of October 3, 1985, correspondence dated September 26, 1985 from Chuck Hughes, Director for Local Government of the Western Mobilehome Association and extra copies of Denny Wheeler's Minority Report dated September 30, 1985. Chairperson Swem noted the receipt by the Board of a packet submitted by Chuck Hughes containing the following: Four-page report to the Rent Control Board of Cambridge, Mass., from Fred Conn, member/builder dated June 20, 1984 and regarding Capitol Needs of Rent Controlled Properties. Copy of Senate Bill 1352 (Greene). Copy of newspaper article "Mobile Park Rent Pact Ok'd" from the Contra Costa Times dated October 7, 1984. 16 -page "Agreement Re Mobile Home Parks" dated October 23, 1984 regarding mobile home parks in Concord, California. Five-page article from "California Real Estate" dated September, 1985 entitled, "Federal Trade Commission Finally Reports on the Effects of Rent Control". (TAPE 2) FINDINGS: Steve Henderson discussed the Findings dated October 17, 1985. This revised docu- ment is a result of a meeting of Roger Picquet, Anne Russell, Steve Henderson and Gaye Benson. Mrs. Benson noted that revisions to the document begin with Item 13 (page 3) and do not include changes in content i.e., the amount indicated for any given year. The difference is merely one of the organization of the material within the sections. In Item 13 (d) the words "excessive and" were deleted. Mrs. Benson noted a mathematical error on page four of the revised Findings. On page three, Item 12, line five, there should be a comma between the words "further" and "allows". (TAPE 3) ACTION: Gaye Benson moved, Patricia Barlow seconded to adopt the Decision and Findings. (APPROVED) NOTE: Gaye Benson assumed the chair as Acting Chairperson for the vote on this Motion. NOTE: Corrected and revised copies of the Decision and Findings were re -submitted to the Board by Steve Henderson. 1 NOTE: Chairperson Swem suggested that future Orders and Findings, etc., make refer- ence to the particular application under consideration. MHRRB 10/23/85 Page 3 APPROVAL OF MINUTES: ACTION: Gaye Benson moved, Patricia Barlow seconded to approve the Minutes of the October 3, 1985 meeting as submitted. (APPROVED) NOTE: The remainder of Tape 3 was not recorded and included a presentation by Chuck Hughes of the Western Mobilehome Association focusing on such issues as a summary of his letter of September 26, 1985, private rent control and public rent control, the "safe harbor" concept, the need to allow comparable rent control, vacancy de -control, and the need to establish rent increases in order to allow for reserves for replacement and maintenance of the park. (TAPE 4) CHARLENE HALL'S STATEMENT: Ms. Hall is the President of SLO MOTA for the mobile home tenants of San Luis Obispo County and a resident of Rancho del Arroyo Mobile Home Park in Oceano. Ms. Hall feels Mr. Hughes made several miss -statements in his presentation. She stated that Mr. Hughes has never consulted with SLO MOTA regarding leases. Regarding Mr. Hughes' statement that park owners don't have the iniative to put the money into the park to make repairs, Ms. Hall noted that rent stabilization laws all make a statement that if there is a large expenditure for improvement or re- pairs that it is passed on to the tenants. She feels the existing leases benefit the park owners rather than the tenants and that the "safe harbor" concept is nothing more than a tactic to further benefit the park owners. Denny Wheeler asked Ms. Hall if she would be willing to meet with a group to try to iron out some of the differences. She replied that she would, however, she has never been asked. Roger Picquet asked Ms. Hall to explain the relationship between SLO MOTA and GSMOL. She explained that she, as the President of SLO MOTA, is an Associate Director of GSMOL for a four County area including San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, Kern and Monterey Counties. SLO MOTA is not considered the local branch of GSMOL but is a separate entity. Mr. Francis Packard is the area Regional Director of GSMOL. Mr. Picquet further asked Ms. Hall if GSMOL has developed a model lease which they endorse. She replied that they have and although she has read the lease, it has not been offered by park owners as they would prefer a WMA lease. Chairperson Swem asked if Ms. Hall's organization would be interested in the possi- bility of trying to iron out the problems between the two leases toward something that could be palatable. She stated that they would be interested in such a meet- ing. She also is not happy with the presentation made today and notes that most of the items of discussion concerning leases have not yet been presented to SLO MOTA. MHRRB 10/23/85 Page 4 LEIGH WILLARD'S STATEMENT: Leigh Willard, Chairperson of the Chumash Village Mobile Home Owner's Association and Chapter President of GSMOL, addressed the Board regarding master leases. He discussed meetings over a 15 month period including impartial persons as well as mo- bile home park owners in order to develop a master lease for the City of San Luis Obispo. The lease was agreeable to all the members of the committee, however, it has not been presented to one park in San Luis Obispo. The parks did receive modi- fications of WMA leases as well as other leases written by various at erh&ys; three of which were accepted by local parks, however renters who did not wish to sign those leases were not penalized and remained on a month-to-month rental basis which is in compliance with the California Code. Mr. Willard noted that the California Code also states that park owners will maintain parks in a condition comparable to the original condition and that they must not be allowed to deteriorate deliberately for any reason. Regarding the "safe harbor" concept, the courts have ruled that 66.66% of a park must fall under the "Safe Harbor" Act in order for it to be in effect. Mr. Willard would like to see this figure increased to at least 90%. Mr. Willard mentioned Maintenance Reserves stating that Chumash Village was sold three times in 30 months and in each sale the Maintenance Reserves went into the pocket of the seller, leaving renters with no control over the monies taken as re- serves. He feels that under any lease, monies specified for reserves should be left for that purpose at the time of sale rather than be used as a method of increas- ing the value of the park so that the sale is very attractive to the potential buyer. Chumash Village residents were offered a lease modified by the owners, however, when negotiations began, the owners' representatives announced they would negotiate on the park rules and regulations, but would change no part of the lease wording and that a $30 a month increase would be needed immediately. Mr. Willard does not feel that is the definition of "negotiation", however, it is the methodology being used by local park owners. DAVID BRYMER'S STATEMENT: David Brymer, resident of Chumash Village Mobile Home Park and Past President of the Chumash Village Tenants Association, reviewed the sales history of Chumash Village and explained the necessity for a Rent Stabilization Ordinance in the City of San Luis Obispo citing rent schedules in Chumash Village from the year 1974 to 1984. During that period there have been eight rent increases ranging from a low of $3.83 to a high of $58.00. A doublewide space rent is currently $229.71 per month, an increase of 145%. Cable TV is now extra (at $9.50), as well as gas fuel costs. Mr. Brymer noted the impossibility of moving a mobile home as there are no vacant spaces in this area. NOTE: The remainder of Tape 4 was not recorded. (TAPE 5) Mr. Brymer mentioned SB 1352 (Greene) and it's definition of a long term lease which theoretically can be one year and one day. NOTE: The remainder of Tape 5 was not recorded, however it included the following discussion: MHRRB 10/23/85 Page 5 Patricia Barlow asked Mr. Brymer his thoughts -on how to improve -the Ordinance. Gaye Benson discussed the Greene Bill (SB 1352). Ward Spencer, Creekside homeowner, gave a presentation regarding rent stabilization, rent control and the "safe harbor" concept. SECRETARY'S NOTE: As Mr. Spencer was giving his presentation, I noticed he was using typed notes and asked him for a copy which is attached to these minutes as Attachment I. Adele Raymond of Chumash Village spoke regarding a copy of her letter to LaCumbre Management dated February 24, 1984. Art Feliciotti, Chumash Village resident presented questions to the Board to be answer- ed by Mr. Hughes as follows: 1. Are you a lawyer? 2. Do you own rental property? 3. Do you own or rent your own home? 4. Do you feel there are many people in the City, County and State who would be harmed or materially affected if the Rent Control Boards were eliminated. 5. Do you feel that the rulings the Board has made are discriminatory against the park owners? 6. How long are leases you have negotiated in other cities and what has been the affect on mobile home owners; were there conflicts and how were they solved? NOTE: Mr. Hughes' reply follows Mr. Jack's statement. (TAPE 6) ART JACK'S STATEMENT: Art Jack, resident of the Laguna Lake Mobile Home Park advised the Board that the Laguna:, Lake Mobile Home Park has a 5 -year lease which was renewed this year for that term, as well as previously being renewed for a 5 -year term. He feels the lease is successful due to the fact that it is almost identical in many respects with the City Ordinance for rent control and noted that approximately 98% of the tenants have signed this lease. Mr. Jack, an attorney, noted that a lease is not a guarantee of the quality of mainten- ance of the park and a lease does eventually expire, therefore, he expressed the im- portance to have the Ordinance as a back-up during the term of the lease and at the end of the lease. He feels that the solution to this problem may lie in the purchase of parks by the tenants. MR. HUGHES' REPLY: At this time, Mr. Hughes replied to Mr. Feliciotti's questions as follows: He is not an attorney and he owns a small ranch in rural Sacramento with two mobile homes on the property which he rents out. He has been a tenant while going to college and is now a landlord. He was a teacher of Government and Economics for ten years, sold commercial and industrial real estate for six years and through that, got into negotiating leases which he has carried over into a mobile home park situation. Mr. Hughes stressed the need for willingness on the part of the tenant as well as the landlord to work with each other rather than fight it out in the courts or with rent control boards. Regarding the purchase of the parks by the tenants, he noted that a: MHRRB 10/23/85 Page 6 lot of work had been done in cities such as Escondido concerning floating bonds to get lower loans, etc., as well as various State programs. He feels this is an issue which could be investigated by the proposed negotiating committee. JIM BUTTERY'S STATEMENT: Mr. Buttery addressed the Board on behalf of Rancho San Luis Mobile Home Park, Creek - side Mobile Home Park, Chumash Village Mobile Home Park and Silver City Mobile Home Park. He summarized his concept of the Chumash application stating he feels the Board is possibly somewhat frustrated with the length of the process to determine a rent application increase and with the investment of their time voluntarily. The City has also spent a substantial amount of Staff time and money going into the operation of this Ordinance. He suggested that maybe there is a better way, another approach to this problem than having these lengthy applications heard by this Board. He expects than an appeal will be filed to the City Council regarding the $20 in- crease requested in the Chumash application. In follow-up to Mr. Hughes comments, Mr. Buttery feels there are some real legal risks to the Ordinance from the tenants point of view citing presently on appeal to the United States Supreme Court, the California decision (Fischer vs. the City of Berkeley) which is addressing the issue of whether or not all rent control Ordi- nances are violative of our Sherman and Clayton Anti -Trust Acts. If the Supreme Court were to conclude that all rent control Ordinances are violations of the Anti - Trust Laws, all rent control would fall including rent control Ordinances in the State of California. Mr. Buttery also noted the risks to the tenants if the California Legislature de- cision on a pending Bill to eliminate all rent control in mobile home parks through- out the State as well as a possible change of attitude within the City Council that could affect the viability of a rent control Ordinance in San Luis Obispo at this time. He stressed that with all the potential risks that the tenants may not always have the Ordinance to fall back on. He feels that the Ordinance did serve it's pur- pose in that it did put a halt to rent increases except those that were in accord- ance with the Ordinance and it taught the mobile home park owners respect for the tenants position. He feels that if both sides would come together to address the issues, with the Board or a sub -committee to act as a facilitator, that possibly an equitable solution in negotiating a long term lease can be reached. Mr. Buttery agrees with Mr. Hughes and Mr. Jack regarding the purchase of mobile home parks by the residents stating that this is probably going to be the way of the future. Mrs. Wright asked Mr. Buttery if he agrees that the model lease is a good one. He re- plied that he does not because although more than 90% of it is good, it is very diffi- cult to understand as it is presently written and contains many mistakes. He does feel, however, that it could be worked out taking other things into consideration. FRANCIS KIRCHNER'S STATEMENT: Mr. Francis Kirchner of Rancho San Luis discussed the model lease and inquired what the Board is going to do about leases, whether they intend to set up a committee to negotiate a lease and what the format would be. In reply to Mr. Kirchner's question, Mr. Wheeler feels the Board now has more to MHRRB 10/23/85 Page 7 work with and would like to hear suggestions from Mr. Hughes as to how to set up the format, what kinds of representation he has seen in the past that has worked as well as a method he would suggest to bring the two groups together in order to begin negotiations as soon as possible. ROGER PICQUEST'S STATEMENT: Mr. Picquet discussed the master lease concept presented by Mr. Hughes.and pointed out that the sample master lease from the City of Concord was done in the absence of a rent control stabilization Ordinance. He expressed a few conceptual concerns re- garding the master lease stating it is important to understand that the City Council cannot contract away their future ability to legislate. Theoretically, there is no need for City involvement if, in fact, the two groups (the tenants and the owners) get together and work out leases. The current Ordi- nance recognizes that and goes so far as to declare that a two-month lease (or 32 day lease) is defined as a long term lease. The City Council clearly wanted to encourage the two groups to meet and to.resolve the problem as it existed in the community by both sides mutually agreeing to long term leases. That ties into the reason for discussing the "safe harbor" concept. The test for any hardship increase under the Ordinance is that, but for the increase being requested, a park owner will fail to get a just and reasonable return. The Council and the Board recognized part of the problems presented to park owners and park residents by requiring 100% of the park residents to be on a lease in order for that park owner to not have to come before the Board. Mr. Picquet feels that under the language of the Ordinance, it becomes an impossible burden in that if there is a 100 space park and 98 residents sign a lease, then in order to raise the rent on the other two spaces, the park owner must convince the Board and the Council that but for those two spaces he will not make a just and reasonable return. He feels this is not only impractical, but fairly impossible and that is the reason why the Staff has discussed the "safe harbor" concept as a way of providing one more in- centive for the two parties to get together and to negotiate mutually agreeable leases. Mr. Picquet stressed the importance of understanding that Mr. Hughes, either as part of the presentation, the master lease concept, or separate from it, raised several other issues that require particular attention. One deals with a "comparable rent (float) concept" which asserts that the existing rent levels are too low for people to realistically.consider any lease. This concept seems to be a sort of interim ad- justment which would allow rents to be set either based on a professional appraisal or some sort of market survey in a city without rent control or whatever. He be- lieves the idea is to allow the rents to come up to where they should be and then proceed from there with either the leases mutually agreed upon or continue the rent control Ordinance. Mr. Picquet recommended other issues which should be discussed deal with vacancy de- control, reserves for capital improvements which would require some sort of account- ing method as well as a limitation on their ability to use those funds for other ex- penditures, and the issue of changing the automatic allowance (the automatic rent geared to the CPI) to full CPI rather than the present 75% when a small inflation rate exists. NOTE: In the last application the issue of reserves was reviewed and it was con- cluded that reserves were another form of an owner's profit. MHRRB 10/23/85 Page g In summation, Mr. Picquet mentioned model leases introduced in the last four years including the model lease worked on by a subcommittee of the Council and a group of residents and owners, the GSMOL statewide model lease and the Western Mobilehome Association's model lease. He feels that some components of these leases can be agreed upon, however, Staff, as well as the City Council, is hesitant to put the figures in the leases. In the past, the Council has felt that is for the owners and the residents to negotiate and it was not their position to recommend to tenants that they sign a particular lease. Mr. Picquet recommended that the model leases presently in existance should be discussed for their alledged deficiencies and de- fects and maybe resolve those rather than writing a new model lease. Chairperson Swem asked Staff if they feel it is this Board's qualification and reason for being here to draft leases. Steve Henderson stated that if the Board would like to make an attempt at writing a model lease with or without the assistance of Mr. Hughes, that the City Council should be consulted for assistance, approval, a mechanic, direction on how to proceed, strategy as well as topics and discussions to be presented. Roger Picquet reviewed the City Council's direction to the Board to review the ad- ministrative and proceedural aspects of the Ordinance and to make recommendations for possible ammendments. He suggested that the Council be advised of any recommendations made by the Board regarding committee formation, etc., before any such action is taken. Mr. Swem asked for direction mentioning that on one hand that the most logical posi- tion is not the City or the Board, but that the two parties get together and resolve their differences, however, over the last few years that has resulted in an Ordi- nance and the ultimate formation of the Mobile Home Rent Review Board. Mrs. Wright suggested that the tenants find their own mediator and that Mr. Hughes and that representative meet to negotiate a model lease to present to the Board. (TAPE 7) Mrs. Benson does not see devising a lease as this Board's responsibility any more than any other contract between other members of the community. She is supportive of the need for a lease process as well as a mediation process. The Ordinance pro- hibits tenants and park owners from sitting on the Board, so there is no place with- in the Ordinance for these people to naturally come together and since the develop- ment of the leases is a process between those parties, she feels they need to meet and deal with that directly. Mrs. Benson is sensitive to the concerns raised re- garding those tenants who feel intimidated by dealing with legal documents, however, she is impressed by the quality of personnel that has represented the park owners as well as the tenants representatives and the tenants themselves in representing and advocating their own positions in the presentations made to the Board in this case. Mr. Wheeler sees the Board as a kind of court hearing the presentations of two,.ad- versarial parties expecting the Board to settle their differences for them. He feels that if the Board settles it, it will never be really settled, however, if the two parties get together and come to an equitable agreement then the Ordinance stands as merely a back-up supporting them in whatever they do. Chairperson Swem suggested the possibility of the Board acting as a sounding board for those two parties to be able to bring their ideas specifically regarding negotiating a lease. MHRRB 10/23/85 Page 9 Mrs. Wright feels there have to be some listeners and Mr. Wheeler feels the Board doesn't need to be a sounding board unless the parties cannot come to an agreement. He stressed the importance of the parties getting together and feels that after all these hearing, both sides probably realize the necessity of getting together more than they did prior to the hearings. Mrs. Wright stressed that in order to reach an agreement, both sides must make every effort to cooperate. C. J. FENDERSON'S STATEMENT: Mr. Fenderson is the owner of Oceannaire Mobile Home Park on Orcutt Road in San Luis Obispo and resides at 29994 Orange Street, Shafter, California. He discussed the "safe harbor" concept stating that as tenants move out, new tenants would be be charged $20 a month more upon moving in. When rent stabilization was introduced, Mr. Fenderson was not able to raise rents and increases based on CPI were not sufficient to maintain the park. However, Mr. Fenderson does make money on the park, so does not feel he can apply to the Board to equalize his rents or to raise them to be able to pay for park maintenance as his application would be denied on the basis that he does, in fact, make a profit on the park. Mr. Fenderson would be agreeable to long term leases in his park, but does not feel there is any value in taking the time to write a lease if due to rent stabilization, he cannot raise the rent upon initiation of a lease. He also feels there is no in- centive for his tenants to negotiate a lease as they are protected by rent control. He noted that there are 3 recreational vehicle spaces for which he has a waiting list and can charge $165 per month as these spaces are for temporary occupation only, while his regular lowest space rent is $117 per month for larger spaces. Mrs. Benson addressed the following questions to Mr. Fenderson: From your own private assessment, you are making a reasonable return on your in- vestment, however, you could make more if you didn't have the Ordinance? Mr. Fenderson replied that he could. I'm assuming from your remarks that you can make more money with your money if you put it somewhere else? Mr. Fenderson replied that he could have, but right now it might be a little more questionable and would depend on what value he could get out of the park if he could sell it. He feels that if he were to sell the park, he would not experience the gain that would be commensurate with the rest of the sales in the State of California on a mobile home park that was not under rent stabili- zation. If you could make more with your money in some other sector of the economy, wouldn't it be natural to sell and put your money elsewhere? Mr. Fenderson replied that that is currently under consideration as well as selling the park to the tenants. Chairperson Swem addressed the subject of leases in that it seems to be the consensus of the Board that it shouldn't be put into a position of negotiating out some lease with two private individuals or a park owner and a tenant. He is aware of the tenants' appreciation of being able to come to the Board to be able to have some- place to air their feelings, etc. The Board is put in a difficult position in try- ing to define what it would like to do for them or what it can do for them. He MHRRB 10/23/85 Rage 10 feels that the idea that if direction was brought from the body, i.e., we have this lease and would like you to implement that as a master lease, that the Board could then take that type of information to the City Council and say, "Based on all of our investigation, based on the input we have received from the community, this lease is now an accepted master form that we would like you to acknowledge". If the tenants and park owners through some mediation process, can come up with that type of a document, it would seem to make life simpler for everybody. This would take a tremendous amount of give and take and certainly, would not be workable if both parties refuse to cooperate. At this point, Mr. Swem is still at a logs as to how the Board can facilitate that happening. Mrs. Benson feels that is the direction to go. She noted the length of time it has taken to process even a single case re -hearing and is concerned about the time in- volved if the direct parties do not go ahead and move on this. However, if the Board can facilitate this process in some way other than sitting down and having to go through writing the leases themselves, she would be willing to hear suggestions about that. She feels the Board is not saying they are not willing to listen or to participate or anything else of that nature, but if there are some specific sug- gestions in the future that people would like to submit in terms of ways the Board could help them through that process, that the Board would be willing to listen and determine if it is something which lies within the role of the Board and can help them. Chairperson Swem feels that one of the things that has been brought forward and that maybe could be used as framework for example purposes, is in Mr. Hughes' present- ation based on some of his feelings on negotiating leases for other communities and how that has worked, etc. The specific items in those leases might not work here. That is not up for discussion right now, but what it has offered as being available is that certainly one section (that being the park owners at this point), is in- terested in trying to mediate and negotiate some type of a long term lease. If that could be brought forward so that the representation of the tenants could be added in to that discussion, then we have something that is going to be workable. If the tenants or the park owners wish to make another presentation to the Board further specifying what their needs are, or something that can be discussed with open comments, then the Board would be more than happy to take a look at that kind of a presentation and put it on an Agenda as well, as we have done this today. The Board has tried all along to make this very open and available to anyone in the community that has interests in making the system work. N Mr. Swem noted that today an offer to negotiate has been brought forward through this presentation and it would be nice if that could be followed through. If that is not workable, and if someone feels they would like the Board to hear another point of view, then the Board would be willing to hear that point of view as well. At this point, the Board doesn't have any real direction to offer other than what has been offered in today's meeting, however, the ball has started to roll in some direction and if that can be picked up and some momentum taken from it, then we might be able to minimize a lot of time and make everybody quite comfortable if not totally happy. Art Jack addressed the Board from the audience suggesting that an organized response for the needs as far as the tenants are concerned should be aired on a general basis which might put a little impetus in seeing that the two sides begin to think about the problems. He feels this response should be heard by the Board before lease negotiations begin. MHRRB 10/23/85 Page 11 Mr. Swem feels that if the Tenants' Associations were interested in making that kind of a presentation of the things that they could see as being beneficial to them in the form of a lease and if they would like to make that kind of a presentation to the Board, that the Board would be more than happy to hear that if the direction is that that information is being brought forward in hearing form so both sides would be effectively on the table and the two parties could then move forward to try to re- solve the differences in terms of some type of a lease agreement. He stressed the need for some direction along with the comments made in the presentation and feels that is the only way such a presentation could be beneficial to the parties con- cerned. Mr. R. Constants, Manager of Silver City Mobile Home Park addressed the Board stating that he represents the owners, Mr. Moody and Mr. Chism, and that they would be happy to donate the use of the clubhouse at Silver City for discussions of leases between representatives from each park in the area, as well as representatives of park owners. He feels that if these representatives were'to bring copies of various leases, air their differences, and ultimately bring back to the Board possible ways of resolving the problems, as well as a suitable lease proposal, that it would save a considerable amount of time. Chairperson Swem thanked Mr. Constants and declared that it is that type of involve- ment and positive impact that will facilitate a solution to the type of dilemma being dealt with here. Mrs. Benson felt there may be some hesitancy or concern on the part of the tenants about Mr. Hughes' role in such a potential meeting. She stated there is no reason tenants cannot suggest additional names of additional persons they would like to have involved if they are part of the GSMOL Staff or something of that nature, or able advocates within their own group. Now that they have a solid offer of a meeting place, she feels they should put together a timetable for themselves. Chairperson Swem summarized by saying that one of the problems being dealt with is the fact that we have a situation on one hand where there is rent control in affect and so there may be a contingent that asks why they have to sign leases, while on the other side, there is a situation that (a couple of years ago), asks why they should sign leases because the Ordinance is going to sunset in another few months. Those two points of view have led to where we are now. So now, if we can go back after going through many processes, to attempt to develop a win-win situation, thereby enabling us to move forward to the mutual satisfaction of all concerned. Mr. Swem feels the type of input brought forward in today's meeting is a good step in that direction. MEETING SCHEDULE: Chairperson Swem would like to move forward on getting some of the things the Board tried to get accomplished this year done, including the form review and certain ad- justments to the Ordinance which the Board feels will make it more manageable, not to change it dramatically, but merely to make it more manageable as far as the fee arrangement is concerned, and the manner in which it might get processed_. At this point we still have the Ordinance to deal with and to move forward with. There are some directions the Board wanted to finalize this year and he would like the Board to develop a schedule in order to accomplish those goals. MHRRB 10/23/85 Page 12 ACTION: Gaye Benson moved, Naoma Wright seconded that the Board meet twice a month between now and the end of 1985. (APPROVED) DIRECTION TO STAFF: Chairperson Swem directed Steve Henderson to develop a calendar and send it to the members and establish a schedule for the next few meetings to resolve the draft forms and other business so that the Board can submit a statement to the City Council recommending what changes they would like to see in the Ordinance for 1985. DATE OF NEXT MEETING: The next meeting will be held on Wednesday, November 6, 1985 at 9:00 a.m. in the City Hall Council Chamber. rUMflMI,iuink-o9 WC The meeting was adjourned at 12:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lois Barton, Recording Secretary Mobile Home Rent Review Board N N