CCMIN010593 - Laserfiche WebLink

32 Ms. Scribner indicated if we do that for this park, then Council would have to offer that to other parks. Ms. Mohr inquired if we had a Section 8 program, that it would have to be for other tenants than just mobilehome parks. Ms. Acosta indicated if Council is looking for a greater application, the affordable housing fund is not large enough to fund it. A revolving fund is needed to make it work. Mr. Pico was not in favor of rent control ordinances unless absolutely necessary. In this situation, a landlord is losing $30,000 a year and staff is saying it will cost $3,000 a month to administer the ordinance, and there are also legal fees and administrative costs to consider. He urged Council to be cautious in how it approaches this situation. He believed further negotiations could solve the problem and still protect the tenants with some kind of subsistence. He indicated this was truly affordable housing and would support the City acquiring a park like this for affordable housing in the future. He believes there is an alternative to an ordinance and would like to continue to work toward that if the property owner will not raise rents for another thirty days. Ms. Scribner expressed confusion. Council has heard from Mr. Wagner's attorney and has seen documentation stating that prior to his purchasing the property, the City Attorney indicated Mr. Wagner could raise rents $100 per space on approximately 17 spaces. The City Attorney allegedly indicated that could happen over a three to five year period. Mr. Wagner went ahead with the purchase of the property allegedly based on that information and now is reluctant to stick to that $100 per space for 17 spaces and lesser rent for other spaces over a three to five year period. Ms. Scribner was annoyed that Mr. Wagner does not want to come to some agreement to do that. Negotiations have been going on for months with no progress. She was willing to continue discussions if Mr. Wagner will consider the $100 per space on the lowest ones and lesser increases on others over a three to five year period. Without that, there is no alternative except to adopt an ordinance. Mr. Tarver asked if this ordinance were adopted and there were no parks not covered by an agreement, then this ordinance would have no affect. It was his understanding that the agreement was originally entered into to protect tenants and park owners and the City wants to be fair to both parties. There is now one situation where agreement can't be reached. He prefers an agreement, but both parties do not seem to think they are being treated fairly. This ordinance would allow for a resolution of those disagreements. The issue is whether Council really wants to have mobilehome rent stabilization in Pleasanton. If an agreement works, fine, but if not, then we must have the ordinance. 1/5/93 32