HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 06211994 - IO.1 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Contra
-,'
FROM: INTERNAL OPERATIONS COMMITTEE Costa
s
County
June 13 1994 %S�' "�_�� Oun`J
DATE: / r�.ccii v�
SUBJECT: REPORT ON PROPOSED MOBILE HOME RENT CONTROL ORDINANCE
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS:
1 . ESTABLISH a Mobile Home Task Force consisting of seven persons
as follows :
• Three mobile home park owners or managers, two to be
selected from among owners or managers of mobile home
parks with 99 or fewer mobile home spaces and one to be
selected from among owners or managers of mobile home
parks with 100 or more mobile home spaces . There should
also be one alternate who can fill in for any of the
three park owners or managers who can not be present at
a meeting.
• Three mobile home residents . There should also be one
alternate who can fill in for any of the three mobile
home residents who can not be present at a meeting.
• One expert in conflict resolution, who can assist in
resolving conflicts among mobile home residents and the
owners ,or managers of mobile home parks .
2 . AUTHORIZE the members of the Internal Operations Committee to
recruit for, screen, interview and recommend appointments for
the Task Force to the Board of Supervisors, hopefully within
30 days .
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES SIGNATURE:
RECOMMENDATION OFCOAD STRATO ECO ENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
APPROVE O
SIGNATURE(S): I�nJ�9
ACTION OF BOARD ON APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED XX— OTHER
The following persons spoke :
W. Cossel, 16711 Marsh Creek Road, #134 , Clayton;
Joe Schneider, 137 Algiers Way, Pacheco;
.A. Harper, Sun Valley Village, Pacheco; Bill Rickard, 710 Treasure Drive,
Bay Point;
Phyllis Roff, Walnut Creek; and N. Jean Stohr, 530 Michele Ct. '(Emerald
Cove Park) , Bay Point.
At the conclusion of the discussion, the Board APPROVED the recommendations
set forth above.
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE
XX UNANIMOUS(ABSENT ) AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN
AYES: NOES: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
ATTESTED. June 21, 1994
Contact: PHIL BATCHELOR.CLERK OF THE BOARD OF
cc: See Page 4 SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
BY �� G�� DEPUTY
3 . DETERMINE that the charge to the Mobile Home Task Force, will
be as follows and that the Task Force is to make a final
report to the Board of Supervisors by September 20, 1994 :
• Define the nature and magnitude of problems in mobile
home parks and propose solutions to those problems which
are identified.
• Identify laws which are currently in place for resolving
disputes which would be helpful in cases like mobile home
rent control disputes .
• Identify and explore the feasibility of alternatives to
rent control such as long-term leases, shared expenses,
shared management and others which may come to the
attention of the Task Force.
4 . REQUEST the Community Development Director and County Counsel
to report to the Board on June 21, 1994 when this report is
presented to the Board on the pros and cons of a rent control
ordinance for mobile home parks so the full Board of
Supervisors can determine whether to pursue a rent control
ordinance and if such an ordinance is to be pursued, to
consider assigning implementation of the ordinance to the
Mobile Home Task Force.
5 . AUTHORIZE the Internal Operations Committee to invite the
members of the Mobile Home Advisory Committee to meet with the
Internal Operations Committee to discuss the role,
responsibilities and composition of the Mobile Home Advisory
Committee and to make subsequent recommendations to the Board
of Supervisors .
6 . REQUEST the Community Development Department staff to consider
the feasibility of monitoring rent increases at mobile home
parks over the next several months and bring to the Board' s
attention any significant number of complaints which are
received from mobile home owners about rent increases so the
Board of Supervisors can consider a temporary moratorium on
rent increases .
7 . REMOVE this item as a referral to the Internal Operations
Committee except as outlined in Recommendation #5 above.
BACKGROUND:
On May 31, 1994, the Board of Supervisors referred to the Internal
Operations Committee the proposal from mobile home owners for an
ordinance which would control rent increases . This referral
included the following specific components :
1 . Devise a fair composition for a Task Force which might outline
some sort of mediation or binding arbitration in cases of
mobile home rent increase disputes .
2 . Outline a timeframe within which action is to be taken on this
subject.
3 . Discuss the option of a moratorium on mobile home rent
increases .
4 . Work with the County Counsel and staff on cost issues .
5 . Consider the composition of the Mobile Home Advisory
Committee.
Not all individuals who wanted to address the Board of Supervisors
were able to do so on May 31, 1994 and the Internal Operations
Committee was directed to hear from these individuals on June 13,
1994 at 9 : 00 A.M.
-2-
On June 13, 1994 at 9 : 00 A.M. , our Committee met with about 50
individuals from several of the mobile home parks in the County.
A number of individual mobile home owners addressed our Committee
on several issues, among which were the following:
• Rent increases at some mobile home parks which have
substantially exceeded the rate of inflation.
• Lack of adequate park maintenance in some parks .
a Inability of mobile home owners to move out of a mobile home
park because of the high cost to move a mobile home and the
relatively low vacancy rate in mobile home parks .
• Difficulty of selling a mobile home because of the high rent
in the mobile home parks .
A number of other mobile home residents from several other mobile
home parks expressed their sympathy at the nature and extent of the
problems which some mobile home residents were experiencing, but
also made it clear that this did not mean that all mobile home park
owners were raising rents inappropriately or failing to care for
their parks . These mobile home residents indicated that they did
not want the Board of Supervisors to do anything which would
interfere with the positive, constructive, cooperative relationship
they have with their park managers and owners and specifically
opposed the enactment of a rent control ordinance.
The mobile home park owners and managers present indicated their
dismay at the actions being taken by some other owners and managers
and agreed that the tactics which had been used were inappropriate.
It was noted that in some mobile home parks the park owner has
entered into a long-term lease with most if not all residents where
the lease includes a "cap" on the amount by which rents can
increase over the term of the lease.
From all of the testimony presented, both at the Board of
Supervisors on May 31, 1994, and at our Committee meeting on June
13, 1994, we have reached the following conclusions :
♦ The problem that exists is with a minority of the mobile home
parks .
♦ However, where the problem does exist, it is a severe problem
and the Board of Supervisors should address the problem and
attempt to resolve it.
♦ We have defined two separate sets of issues that need to be
addressed:
o There are some specific rent increase and park
maintenance issues which need to be addressed through
mediation or some other process .
o There is also a need for a Task Force which can do some
future planning on what the relationship should be among
the County, mobile home park owners, and mobile home
residents and provide their recommendations to the Board
of Supervisors .
On the basis of these conclusions, we have outlined the above
recommendations which we believe are responsive to the Board' s
referral and will assist in addressing the problems which have been
outlined to the Board of Supervisors and our Committee.
Attached for the information of the Board members is another copy
of the staff report which was made available to the Board on May
31, 1994 and a copy of some information on the mobile homes in
Contra Costa County which have at least 20 mobile home spaces .
Note, however, that this data is three years old. The column
headed "M rent" means "median rent" and the column headed "H rent"
means "high rent" - at that park in May, 1991 .
-3-
cc: County Administrator
Director, GMEDA
Community Development Director
Jim Kennedy, Deputy Redevelopment Director
Kathleen Hamm, Senior Planner
Community Development Department
County Counsel
-4-
•A
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
DATE: May 26, 1994
TO: Board6ent
ors
FROM: 7Deut
edevelopment
SUBJECT: Stabilization Matters
,I
Thefollowing inf rmon�isprovided for your review and consideration prior to the
May 31, 1994 m g of the Board of Supervisors to discuss mobile home rent
stabilization issues.
I. BACKGROUND
A. There are 25 mobilehome parks in Contra Costa County with 20 or more
spaces, including:
i
19 parks in District 5 1 park in District 2
3 parks in District 4 2 parks in District 1
0 parks) in District 3
B. On March 1, 1994, the Board of Supervisors received a petition from residents
of Clayton Regency Mobilehome Park (District 5) requesting the adoption of
a rent stabilization ordinance for Contra Costa County (Agenda Item 1.85) .
The petition was referred to the Contra Costa County Mobilehome Advisory
Committee (MHAC) , the Community Development Department, and County
Counsel.
C. On May 10, 1994, the Board heard additional public comment from selected
representatives of mobilehome park owners and residents (Agenda Item 1.61) .
The Board deferred consideration of rent stabilization issues to a special
meeting on May 31, 1994.
D. Public testimony and correspondence received by the Board and the MHAC
since February, 1994 both disputes and supports the need for rent stabilization
in the County's mobilehome parks.
1. Issues identified by park residents include:
o "Excessive" rent increases;
o Rent pass-throughs;
o Inability to sell mobilehomes due to high rent costs;
o Park owner restrictions on resident subleasing;
o Lack of adequate park maintenance;
o Uneven enforcement of park rules;
o Alleged health and safety code violations; and
0 Lack of communication with owners concerning rent increases, etc.
2. Concerns raised by park owners/managers include:
0 Increases in costs (e.g. , maintenance, fees, taxes, long-term
capital improvements) which require rent increases in order to
maintain financial viability; and
0 The inability of park owners to earn a "fair return" and continue
operations under rent stabilization/control.
II. MOBILEHOME ADVISORY COMMITTEE ACTION ON RENT STABILIZATION
REFERRAL
A. At their May 19, 1994, meeting, the MHAC considered a motion to recommend
that the Board of Supervisors approve the Mobilehome Rent Stabilization
Ordinance submitted to the Board by residents of Clayton Regency Mobilehome
Park for enactment in Contra Costa County. The proposed motion was
defeated on a six to two vote.
B. Based on MHAC comments during the discussion, this action should be viewed
as a vote on the specific ordinance recommended rather than on the overall
issue of rent stabilization. Some members stated that they did not feel
qualified to determine the legality or adequacy of a specific ordinance. In
addition, two Committee members who voted no expressed the view that rents
in some parks are "probably" too high. One additional member stated his
concern that the nature and magnitude of the rent problem should be clearly
established before proceeding to potential solutions.
III. RENT STABILIZATION ISSUES - OUTLINE
A. What is the problem?
0 Rents - what's fair?
0 Uncertainty over future rent increases?
0 Park maintenance and amenities?
0 Resale/subleasing restrictions?
0 Enforcement of park rules?
0 Communication?
0 Countywide or isolated?
0 Inadequate incomes?
0 Coach conditions?
B. Solutions.depend on nature of problem.
1. Affordability:
0 Rent subsidies;
0 Tenant/non-profit acquisition of parks.
2. "Excessive" rent increases in selected parks:
0 Mediation/conflict resolution (targeted);
0 Binding arbitration.
p
3. "Excessive" rent increases pervasive/countywide:
o Mediation/conflict resolution (large-scale) ;
o Binding arbitration;
o Rent stabilization/control.
C. Rent stabilization issues.
1. Ordinance terms:
o Formula for allowable rent increases;
o Coverage (park size, age, etc.);
o Appeals process for owners and residents;
o Penalties for noncompliance;
o Monitoring and enforcement.
2. Administration:
o Assignment of responsibility for administration, monitoring,
enforcement, and litigation.
o Required budget support (information from a small sample of
jurisdictions indicates a range in administrative and litigation
costs from $40,000 to over $120,000 annually) .
o Source of funds (General Fund, fees to park owners/pass
through to residents)
IV. ALTERNATIVE:PROCEDURAL APPROACHES
Alternatives for assessing rent stabilization issues and developing recommendations
for consideration by the Board of Supervisors include the following:
A. Refer issue to Board of Supervisors Internal Operations Committee for
assessment and' recommended action (suggested by correspondence accepted
by Board at May 24, 1994, Board meeting, Agenda Item 1.75) .
B. Establish a special Task Force (discussed at May 10, 1994, Board meeting) .
1. Composition - Task Force should consist of no more than five to seven
members representing a combination of some or all of the following:
o Park owners (corporate, small park);
o Residents;
o MHAC representative;
o At" large citizen representatives with no vested
interest;
o Board representative;
o Conflict resolution or arbitration specialist.
If a Task Force composed of owners and residents is selected, the Task
Force will be more likely to be effective if the representatives are
nominated by and authorized to negotiate on behalf of their constituent
group.
2. Task Force Mission/Responsibility:
o Define the nature and magnitude of re1A--caj2tro'I�p 1 lfm, in
County mobilehome parks.
o Develop recommendations to the Board of Supervisors concerning
solutions to identified problems.
o Identify potential funding sources to support administration and
enforcement of proposed solution.
o Charge may be broadly or narrowly defined (e.g. , focus on rent
issue only or broader range of problems which may exist in
mobilehome parks, including park maintenance, subleasing
restrictions, enforcement of rules, etc.) .
3. Timing:
o Task Force to complete fact-finding and report to Board of
Supervisors within three months, six months, etc.
o Time required to complete task will depend on how narrowly the
Board defines the Task Force mission and whether or not the
Board provides resources for technical support (e.g. ,
information gathering, identification and assessment of
alternatives, conflict resolution and negotiation) .
C. Clarify referral to Mobilehome Advisory Committee to request assessment of
identified issues and the development of specific recommendations to the Board
concerning potential solutions. Issues concerning mission and timing same as
for Task Force alternative.
V. ADMINISTRATIVE ISSUES
1. Depending on the mission defined by the Board, the Task Force and
MHAC alternatives discussed under IV.B and C will most likely require
substantial technical support. The Community Development Department
is not able to undertake an independent assessment of this issue or
provide the required staff support to the MHAC or a special Task
Force.
2. Administrative alternatives - Board of Supervisors could:
o Provide additional resources for consultant to analyze issues
and/or work with MHAC or Task Force (preliminary estimates
suggest a cost of $30,000 to $50,000 depending on the breadth of
the charge provided by the Board of Supervisors and the
resultant scope of work) .
o Assign responsibility to another entity within the County.
Supervisor DeSaulnier has indicated his office may be available
to provide staff support on this issue.
cc: County Administrator
County Counsel
Director, GMEDA
Director of Community Development
MHAC
kh/kl/mhacl5
Supplement to I0.1 on
June 21, 1994 Board of
Supervisors Agenda
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
DATE: June 21, 1994
TO: Board of Su r sors
i
FROM: Jim Ken
Deput Direc - Redevelopment
SUBJECT: Mob' e Ho ent Stabilization - Pros and Cons
The June 13, 1994 recommendation of the Internal Operations Committee of the Board
of Supervisors requests that the Community Development Department report on the
pros and cons of rent'i control ordinances for mobile home parks (Recommendation No.
4) . The following discussion is based on the overall economics of rent control and
addresses these issues in general terms only.
I. Background - Mobilehome Parks in Contra Costa.
A. There a,re 58 mobile home parks with 20 or more spaces in Contra Costa
County,, including 26 in the unincorporated area.
B. According to a June 1994 telephone survey of these parks, space rents
average'$350 per month in all 58 parks and $352 per month in parks in
the unincorporated area. Average rents in individual parks range from
$176 to $487. A copy of the survey is attached for your information.
C. According to the 1994 survey, there are currently 153 vacant mobile
home park spaces in Contra Costa and 407 coaches for sale (total of 560
vacant units out of 6,534 or 9 percent) . In the unincorporated area,
there are 67 vacant spaces and 184 coaches for sale (total of 251 vacant
units out of 2,934 or 9 percent).
D. From 1992 to 1994, median rents in all 58 parks increased by 6 percent.
During this same period, the consumer price index rose by 6 percent.
Ii. Rent controls.
A. Rent controls establish maximum allowable rents and/or rent increases
for specified properties. In California, rent controls on mobile home
park spaces establish maximum allowable rent increases using a variety
of approaches, including:
1. mediation;
2. review by an independent Commission or Board;
3. increases based on changes in the Consumer Price Index
('ranging from 50 to 100 percent of the total change);
4. specified percentage (ranging from 3 to 10 percent per year); or
5. a combination of the above approaches (e.g. , 60 percent of CPI
or 5 percent, whichever is lower) .
6. Some ordinances permit pass-throughs based on increases in
selected park operating costs.
B. If controlled rents are set at or above current market rents, they will
have no impact.
C. If controlled rents are set below market rents, then the controlled rents
will be the rents charged. In this instance, rent controls are said to be
effective in that they determine the rents that will be paid.
III. Potential advantages of rent control ordinances for mobile home parks.
A. Stabilizes or increases predictability of rents for households who own
their coaches and rent space in mobile home parks ("MH resident-
owners111) .
B. Effective rent controls result in lower rent payments than uncontrolled
or market determined rents for current and future MH resident-owners,
including many lower-income and/or elderly households.
C. Increases the value of in-place mobile homes, providing a financial
benefit to MH resident-owners at the time rent controls are imposed.
Following imposition of rent controls, the value of controlled/below-
market -rents is capitalized into an increased placement value for
coachesin the controlled parks. The increased placement value
translates into an increased resale value, resulting in a financial
benefit
D. Protects park residents from profiteering by owners in areas where
there is a severe local shortage of mobile home park spaces and
alternative affordable housing.
E. Potentially increases neighborhood stabilization by decreasing resident
turnover in controlled parks.
IV. Potential disadvantages and limitations of rent control ordinances.
A. Effective rent controls will lower benefits to park owners through lower
rent proceeds and decreased park values.
1. Effective rent controls limiting rents to below-market levels will
result in lower total rent payments.
2. Mobile home parks are valued primarily in terms of the income
stream they are expected to produce. Rent controls decrease the
Potential return and profitability of mobile home parks relative
to alternative uses of the property and other types of
investment. Therefore, effective rent controls decrease the
value of the park, resulting in a net loss to the park
owner/investor.
B. Effective rent controls are likely to decrease the quantity and quality
of mobile home park spaces over the long-run.
1. If permitted under existing local land use policies, park owners
may be induced to convert parks to alternative uses with a
higher return.
2. Investors will have less incentive to develop new parks.
3. Existing owners will have less incentive and resources with which
to maintain existing parks. In the extreme case where rents do
not keep pace with increased operating and maintenance costs,
owners may abandon the park.
C. Potentially harms households who desire to live in mobile home parks in
the future in two ways.
i
1. Limited/lower supply of spaces means fewer households will have
an opportunity to live in a park in the future.
2. The increased value of coaches in-place at the time rent control
is, imposed results in higher resale values (see III.C above) , with
the result that mobile homes will become less affordable to
purchasing households. Increased downpayment and mortgage
costs will at least partially offset the impact of the controlled
rents for future mobile home owners.
D. Represents a non-targeted approach.
1. Impacts all mobile home parks regardless of whether or not
problems of excess rent exist.
2. Limits rents for all park residents rather than targeting
assistance and benefits to low-income households in need.
E. Does not address many of the other issues identified as problems by
residents and may make some worse (e.g. , maintenance) .
F. Cost issues.
1. Implementation of rent control will require development of new
and potentially costly administrative and enforcement
mechanisms.
2. Depending on the specific ordinance, may involve the County in
significant and costly litigation.
3. Limited information from a sample of jurisdictions indicates a
range in administrative and litigation costs from $40,000 to over
$120,000 annually.
4. Funding sources limited: General Funds; fees paid by park
owners with/without an allowable pass through to residents.
Attachment
KH/K1/MHBos
Attachment
CONTRA COSTA CO UNIT
Mobilehome Advisory Committee
MOBILEHOME PARK SURVEY
for 1994 (through 7/1/94)
by Scott Carter
SUBURBAN MANAGEMENT & BROKERAGE
(510) 934-4550
June 16, 19942
This report contains information on Mobilehome Parks having at
at least 20 spaces. It is intended to give a general scope of the
rents charged in the various mobilehome parks throughout the County
and is based on the rents reported during a telephone inquiry.
Total (average) rents are weighted by number of spaces and do not
account for utilities and services separated out from the rent and
billed separately. Many of the Parks either now do or later expect
to charge separately for water, sewer, and garbage. A few older
parks include gas in their base rent.
Rents customarily are adjusted annually at different times of the
year, depending on which Park. Some parks make adjustments less
frequently. Some Parks adjust all resident's space rent on the
same date while others adjust rents on the anniversary date of the
space tenancy.
Explanation of Codes:
MH's = Mobilehome spaces RV's = Recreational Vehicle Spaces
Totl = Total number of spaces Vac = Vacant spaces in Park
FS = number of Mobilehomes for sale in the Park
M Rent = the mean rent charged for a space in a Park. (In a Total
position it means the average mean rent for the Parks weighted by
the number of spaces in each Park. )
H Rent = the highest rent charged for a space in a Park. (In a
Total position it means the average high rent for the Parks
weighted by the number of spaces in each Park. )
CJ = "*" the Park is under County Jurisdiction
June 16, 1994
Park Name MH's RV' s Totl Vac FS M rent H rent CJ
Chateau Park 122 0 122 0 9 378 .50 400. 00
Delta Villa Estates 107 5 112 35 6 401. 60 401. 60
Sandy Point 3 Mobilehome 39 7 46 2 2 259. 00 300. 00
Vista Diablo Mobilehome 150 0 150 0 8 415. 09 425.00
Totals for ANTIOCH 418 12 430 37 25 384 .50 398.44 1
Flamingo Mobilehome Park 62 0 62 1 4 233 .50 238.50
Frank's Trailer Park 27 38 65 12 1 269.50 276.50
Island Park 124 80 204 2 6 242 .50 260. 00
Willows, The 172 0 172 0 6 309 .50 396. 00
Totals for BETHEL ISLAND 385 118 503 15 17 267 .79 305.99 4
Midway Trailer Park 25 0 25 0 0 252.50 310.00
Walnut Acres Mobilehome 94 0 94 0 5 248.75 253 .75
Woodgate Mobilehome Park 108 0 108 0 6 258. 00 263 .00
Totals for BRENTWOOD 227 0 227 0 it 253 .56 264.35 0
Camino Mobilehome Park 67 0 67 2 5 270. 00 280. 50
I I I J
Totals for BYRON 67 0 67 2 5 270. 00 280. 50 1
Clayton Regency Mobileho 189 8 197 20 13 410. 00 410. 00
Curry Creek Trailer Park 23 0 23 0 0 487 . 50 650. 00
Totals for CLAYTON 212 8 220 20 13 418 . 1043 0? 2
Adobe Mobile Lodge 77 0 77 1 3 400. 00 400. 00
r
June 16, 1994
Park Name MH's RV's Totl Vac FS M rent H rent CJ
Brookview Mobilehome Par 77 1 0 77 0 1 478. 00 478.00
Concord Mobile Country C 282 .6 288 1 20 382 .50 418. 00
Dalis Gardens Mobilehome 260 0 260 0 25 481.46 519.32
Diablo Mobile Lodge 71 2 73 1 5 291. 09 326. 00
Sunny Acres Mobilehome P 177 0 177 0 5 395. 00 475.00
Town & Country Mobile Vi 167 0 167 3 15 385. 00 420.00
Trees, The 153 0 153 1 13 381.50 413 .00
Victoria Mobilehome Park 54 0 54 1 6 426. 01 446. 00
Vista Del Monte Trailer 28 28 56 0 2 296.77 339.67
Willow Pass Trailer Park 32 31 63 1 2 303 .50 330. 00
Totals for CONCORD 1378 67 1445 9 97 398.28 434 . 68 0
Sobrante Mobilodge 44 0 44 0 1 335.00 360.00
Totals for EL SOBRANTE 44 0 44 0 1 335. 00 360. 00 1
Big Oak Mobilehome Park 54 10 64 2 2 280. 00 290. 00
Eagle City Mobile Estate 143 0 143 0 4 248. 00 257 . 00
Kennedy's Mobile Home Pa 23 6 29 1 0 247 .50 255. 00
Marina Mobile Manor 24 0 24 0 1 242.50 245.00
Totals for OAKLEY' 244 16 260 3 7 255. 31 263 .79 4
Concord Cascade 283 0 283 0 20 440. 00 445. 00
Pacheco Mobile Villa 40 0 40 0 0 260. 00 260. 00
Rancho Diablo Mobilehome 159 0 159 0 8 405.50 426.00
Sun Valley Village 263 0 263 0 26 486.50 510. 00
i
June 16, 1994
Park Name MH's RV's Totl Vac FS M rent H rent CJ
Totals for PACHECO 745 0 745 0 54 439. 39 453.96 4
Broadway Mobile Park � ' 39 0 39 0 0 176.00 182.00
Club Marina Mobilehome P 156 0 156 8 12 310. 00 320.00
Crestview Mobilehome Vil 87 0 87 7 10 402.00 412. 00
Delta Hawaii Mobile Esta 281 0 281 0 20 360.00 393 .00
Emerald Cove Mobilehome 196 0 196 0 18 347.50 360.00
Far Hills Mobilehome Par 93 0 93 0 5 180.00 180.00
Mariners Cove Mobilehome 150 0 150 6 14 376.97 400. 00
Meadows Mobilehome Park 367 0 367 3 40 357 .50 400.00
Riverview Mobileh;ome Par 44 0 44 3 2 252 .50 260. 00
Totals for PITTSBURG 1413 0 1413 27 121 336.21 360. 11 7
Park Royale Mobilehome & 28 15 43 0 2 286. 99 299.35
Totals for PLEASANT HILL 28 15 43 0 2 286.99 299. 35 0 '
Rodeo Trailer Park 24 10 34 0 4 328. 00 333 . 00
Totals for RODEO 24 10 34 0 4 328. 00 333 .00 1
Alpine Mobile Park 35 4 39 0 0 255. 00 255. 00
Alvarado Mobilehome Park 46 6 52 3 4 258.50 285.00
Circle "S" Corral 201 0 201 6 3 280.00 290.00
Frontier Mobilehome Park 35 0 35 2 5 309.50 314. 00
Gerkens Mobilehorne Court 31 31 62 7 1 247.50 265.00
Grace Lane Mobilehome Pa 74 0 74 0 0 311.50 338. 00
i
June 16, 1994
Park Name MH's RV's Totl Vac FS M rent H rent CJ
Hacienda Mobilehome Park 73 1 74 2 2 278. 00 300.00
Idle Wheels Mobilehome P 98 0 98 3 5 257. 26 299.82
Kimball's Mobilehome Par 87 25 112 1 6 257 . 50 265.00
Modern Trailer Lodge 22 0 22 10 0 302.50 315. 00
Richmond Trailer Park 45 0 45 0 1 185.00 185. 00
Tara Hills Mobilehome Pa 250 0 250 1 20 450. 50 480.00
Willow Road Mobilehome P 39 0 39 5 3 185. 00 245. 00
I I ! 1 I I ! 4
Totals for SAN PABLO 1036 67 1103 40 50 306.74 327 .80 1
All Mobilehome Parks MH's RV's Totl I Vac I FS M rent1H rent CJ
Totals for Contra Costa 6221 313 6534 153 407 350.25 374.21 26
Total Parks in this report = 58
i
i
COUNTY COUNSEL'S OFFICE
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
MARTINEZ, CALIFORNIA
Date: June 20, 1994
To: Board of Supervisors
From: Victor J. Westman, County Counsel kA
By: Lillian T. Fujii, Deputy County Counsel
Re: Mobilehome Park Rent Control Issues
i
On June 14, 1994, the Board's Internal Operations Committee requested this
office's comments on the general "pros and cons" of mobilehome park rent control. As
noted in Recommendation No. 3 of the Board's June 13th 1994 order, with the
development of definition concerning this rent control issue, there may be further "pros
and cons" for consideration which we may have overlooked at this time. With this
caveat, we provide a brief listing of "pros and cons" (issues) that the Board may wish to
consider when determining whether or what further action or study is appropriate in
the matter of possible mobilehome rental space regulation in Contra Costa County.
1. ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS AND BENEFITS.
a. Administrative Cost Consideration.
County administrative staff must be employed and probably an adjudicatory
board created to be tasked with overseeing, administering and enforcing the various
requirements of a rent 'control ordinance, including making timely determinations on
rent adjustment applications.
While the county's costs of administering a rent control ordinance probably
may be assessed against the mobilehome park owner, such costs assessed would have
to be allowed to be passed through to mobilehome owners. (Rent may not increase
because of other factors, but a regulatory levy under a rent control ordinance, to pay for
the ordinance's administration, would have to be considered an allowable cost to the
park owner, subject to recoupment through space rent.) Therefore, the Board may wish
to consider the possible costs of administering a rent control ordinance, to determine
the range of fees to be assessed to park owners, and eventually to mobilehome owners
(space renters).
Unless there are sufficient parks and spaces to spread the costs of a rent
control program, the cost might be a hardship for involved parties.
Board of Supervisors
June 20, 1994
Page 2
b. Spaces Excluded from Rent Control Ordinance Fees.
In addition, it should be noted that administrative costs may have to be spread
among an even smaller base because at appears that spaces subject to qualifying long-
term leases may not be assessed a fee under a mobilehome park rent control ordinance.
(Civil Code, § 798.17(e).) Civil Code section 798.15 sets forth criteria for certain long
term leases (in excess of 12 months), which, pursuant to Civil Code section 798.17,
would exempt that space from any mobilehome rent control ordinance, including fees
assessed under such ordinance. If a significant number of this County's spaces are
covered by long term leases, the impact of a rent control ordinance funded by fees
would be felt even more by those spaces subject to the levy.
c. Legal Expenses Unpredictable.
Although legal expenses are often a part of operating public programs, legal
expenses associated with administering, enforcing and defending a rent control
ordinance may be significant and unpredictable depending on the degree of control the
ordinance seeks to impose. It is now established that ordinances regulating rental
rates at mobilehome parks are a valid exercise of the police power provided the
prerequisite constitutional facts exist, that certain provisions found in some rent control
ordinances are also valid (e.g., "vacancy control" provisions), and that the legality of
rent regulation notwithstanding, park owners are entitled to a fair rate of return on
their investment. However, it has not yet been determined with any consistent legal
certainty, what constitutes a fair rate of return, or how that may legally be established
without legal risk.
For example, the draft ordinance presented to the Board by the Contra Costa
Mobile Home Owners Association would presume that "net profit" in the "base year"
(1988) provides a fair rate.of return (§ 7.5.1), but in calculating net profit (gross receipts
minus operating expenses), expenses such as incurred mortgage interest and principal
may not be considered operating expenses. (§ 7.4.2.) The constitutionality of this
formula for determining fair rate of return is subject to question. While the ordinance
also gives the "Commission" the authority to consider any factors required by law to
provide a fair rate of return (§ 7.7.3), as drafted, the Contra Costa Mobile Home
Owners Association's proposed ordinance would probably result in litigation.
2. RELATIONS IN PARKS.
Listening to testimony given by various residents of various parks, it appears
that not all mobilehome owners support rent control measures, and that
Board of Supervisors
June 20, 1994
Page 3
owner/management relationships range from cool to cordial to cooperative in many
parks. Whether the implementation of a rent control measure, calling for rent
rollbacks and requiring an affirmative showing by the park owner to rebut a
presumption that the rolled back rental rate provides a fair return, will result in more
positive park relationships is a matter for policy review.
3. FUTURE INVESTMENT.
The mobilehome owners association's draft ordinance, while recognizing that
mobilehome parks provide a valuable resource in the form of moderate cost housing,
notes that there is a shortage of space given the existing demand, and further states
that land use restrictions preclude the development of new mobilehome parks. (§§ 3.4,
3.2 and 3.8.) Assuming (as it is implied in the subject ordinance) that there is no land
in the unincorporated area presently zoned for new mobilehome park use, this office
understands that the general plan would allow additional property to be considered for
rezoning for possible mobilehome park use, but this should be confirmed with the
Community Development Department. The extent to which mobilehome park rent
control measures would be an incentive to, or discourage new park development would
depend (in part) on the regulations adopted and economic factors which this office is
not qualified to comment on.
4. FURTHER INVESTIGATION AND INVOLVEMENT APPEARS
APPROPRIATE.
I
While the County is further investigating the benefits and negatives of
adopting a rent control measure, testimony presented at the several hearings before the
Board and Board Committees suggests that there may be some problems at some
parks. Mobilehomes are not truly mobile, and it is not a simple matter for a
mobilehome to be moved from one location to another. Given the complexity of the
situation, it appears that further factual investigation and consideration of involvement
in some form may be warranted.
cc: James Kennedy, Redevelopment Director
Kathleen Hamm, Redevelopment
LTF
9a:mobile.m2