01 - Laserfiche WebLink

park, and sidewalk slabs were being replaced. He felt maintenance was an on-going concern of residents and he hoped the owner could continue making progress. Councilmember Sullivan questioned whether the City had any enforcement procedures in place, and Mr. Roush said there is a dispute resolution procedure in the current agreement; however, it was not as quick as initiating the City's administrative remedies provision. Councilmember McGovern said the agenda report indicates that staff was not prepared to recommend to the City Council that a new agreement be approved, acknowledged discussions were continuing and progressing but voiced concern with no deadline date for completion of the agreement. Mr. Roush said there have been successful negotiations with the adjacent park; Vineyard Villa, and he would be meeting with them to discuss and vote on a proposed agreement. Some time in the next two to three weeks there should be a similar agreement and meeting scheduled for Hacienda Mobile Home Park and the matter should return to the Council by the end of September. Mayor Hosterman opened the matter for public comment. Carol Perkins President of the Hacienda Mobile Home Association said sidewalks were finally being repaired after many years, questioned where funds would come from, said they have already paid for the work under operating expenses and said in 2002 they paid double property taxes plus an additional amount that had to be placed into an escrow for future taxes due to the owner refinancing the mortgage. She referred to Item J in the Rent Stabilization Agreement, read the definition for property taxes, said the owner rejected putting money into an escrow account, discussed the spreadsheet for accounting of the funds for ten years, requested more control over how their money was spent on capital improvements, asked that three estimates be obtained for work and asked to have the right to approve the expense and need for all improvements. She said the proposed change gives no accountability; questioned the expenditures of their funds and referred to SB 981 and Item 798.31, (b) regarding capital improvements. If passed it would become effective January 1, 2008, and she requested an ordinance be adopted. Mr. Roush in reply to Councilmember McGovern said there are pros and cons of adopting an ordinance versus an agreement. The matter would be brought to the Council in the future, many items raised are included in the current agreement and may be included in a future agreement, the existing agreement addresses capital improvements and provides that if there are new capital improvements to be installed, and those matters must go to residents to be approved if over a certain amount. If the improvements replace existing capital improvements, those do not have to go to a vote and both the ordinance and agreement provide that the owner can recover those costs as pass-through to the residents without their concurrence. Penny Marshall said she has attended many homeowner meetings and maintenance has always been requested. Residents maintain their homes and yard areas pay monthly rent which should go toward water and garbage and approximately $140 for facility maintenance. At the last homeowner meeting Mr. Hoon acknowledged there had been no maintenance done to the property for the last 5 years because the park was in legal battles over ownership. She questioned what made the owner's lack of maintenance her capital improvement cost. Last week, a contractor removed some areas of sidewalk around the clubhouse, said there were numerous night lights that are out, the clubhouse roof has a leak, it needs to be painted, and the City Council Minutes 4 August 21, 2007