Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Lowell noted that capital improvement costs collected under the prior agreement were in dispute, <br /> though parties to the dispute have reach a resolution in which the park owner will contribute $65,000 for <br /> the rehabilitation of the clubhouse kitchen. The total contribution of $65,000 includes all funds collected <br /> as in lieu capital improvement costs during 2013 and will be held in escrow and only to be released <br /> upon demonstration that the monies were spent on the stipulated rehabilitation. Any excess monies will <br /> be returned to residents and the park owner may not assess residents for any costs that exceed that <br /> contribution. Other capital improvement costs may only be passed on to residents in accordance with <br /> the relevant provisions of the city's Rent Stabilization Ordinance, attached as an exhibit to the <br /> agreement. <br /> Those residents who paid in lieu capital improvements in the past and prefer this option may enter into <br /> a separate agreement with the park whereby they may continue to pay in lieu fees instead of being <br /> subject to capital improvement assessments. The city will not be involved in drafting or negotiation of <br /> such an agreement. <br /> Mr. Lowell stated that following an all park meeting held on September 16th, all households were <br /> provided a ballot to indicate approval or disapproval of the proposed agreement. 67 of the 149 <br /> households voted, with 60 indicating their favor of the agreement. He noted that concerns were raised <br /> at the meeting that the proposed agreement does not set forth maintenance standards like those <br /> incorporated into the last agreement. 22 of the 60 votes in favor of the agreement included handwritten <br /> notes requesting the inclusion of maintenance standards. Staff met with the park owner for further <br /> discussion and have reached agreement that maintenance standards shall be set forth in a separate <br /> side letter which can be referred to by all parties, including a hearing officer should the need arise. <br /> If approved, the new agreement would take effect today. Staff understands that the park owner has <br /> already issued a rent increase notice advising residents of their rent effective October 1. Following <br /> approval of the agreement, the park owner will immediately send out rent increase notices indicating <br /> what rents, which reflect a 2% CPI increase, will be effective January 1. Given the level of resident <br /> support and the park owner's agreement to the side letter regarding maintenance responsibilities, staff <br /> recommends approval of the proposed agreement. <br /> Vice-Mayor Cook-Kallio asked whether the agreement speaks to the proper procedure should property <br /> taxes decrease. <br /> Mr. Lowell said "no" but noted that this pass through relates to a tax that went into effect in 2000 or <br /> 2001. While various changes in valuation occurred in subsequent years and while some were in fact <br /> reductions, none were reduced below the 2001 figures. <br /> Mayor Thorne opened the item for public comment. <br /> Ed Eckert stated he has been a park resident for 2 '/ years. Under the proposed agreement, he would <br /> continue to pay in lieu capital improvement fees as part of his rent and he therefore disagreed with the <br /> agreement on principle. He noted that many residents are living on a very limited income and that some <br /> will be forced to sell their home and leave the park because they cannot manage this type of increase. <br /> Anthony Massa said the proposed agreement has one major flaw, which is that it eliminates the in lieu <br /> capital improvement cost only for those residents who were there prior to 2008. He noted several <br /> references to this cost being incorporated in the rent of those who moved to the park after this date and <br /> said it is really a matter of semantics that leaves them still footing this bill. He also noted that 75% of <br /> those who voted in favor of the agreement are set to benefit from a $17 or $34 monthly reduction; <br /> whereas many of those who moved in after 2007 decided not to vote after learning they would receive <br /> no benefit. He presented the City Clerk with a petition requesting an impartial judgment of the matter. <br /> City Council Minutes Page 4 of 7 October 1, 2013 <br />