PC 022509 - Laserfiche WebLink

Commissioner O’Connor inquired if the State would extend a loan for both the mobile home and the land if an 85-year-old resident is making payments on the mobile home and purchases the land for $200,000. Ms. Forbath replied that the loan would only be on the land but that the existing mobile home loan would be considered in the assessment. Commissioner Fox noted that the survey was done for ten years into the future and inquired if this would be adequate or bona fide, considering that the price ten years from now would be unknown and seniors would have no idea what the values would be in the future. Ms. Forbath replied that there are several reasons for someone to support the conversion without knowing whether or not they want to buy, including the recognition that it provides options in the future. She noted that one would not necessarily have enough information until the DRE process is completed, and the applicants cannot go to that process until they are approved by the City. She added that the survey is not asking whether or not they want to buy but whether they support the idea of having an option in the future. Mr. Close stated that he raised similar points when the law was being proposed, but the legislature decided that the survey must be done in the beginning of the process. He indicated that he thinks the legislature wanted the park owner to get a feeling as to whether or not residents might be interested in purchasing if they were able to do it and if financing was available. He indicated that he agreed with some comments that the survey should have been done at the end of the process; however, they needed to follow State law. Commissioner Narum requested an explanation of the statement in the minutes of the January 2009 mobile home park meeting quoting Ms. Forbath as saying that the “rent structure will likely change.” Ms. Forbath replied that currently the rent protections in place under the rent stabilization agreement apply to everybody across the board, but that upon conversion, the formula and structure would change, with a different set of rent protections for lower-income and non-lower-income residents. She explained that the agreement currently allows pass-throughs for capital improvements, inspections, and fees, and rent can be increased, whereas under the State law, there would be no more pass-throughs and would be strictly limited to CPI. Mr. Roush stated that this is correct and added that staff negotiated out the capital improvement pass-through for this particular park and that the owner has agreed to pay for all capital improvements. Mr. Close inquired if, assuming there is no rent stabilization agreement in 2019; pass-throughs would be allowed under rent stabilization rules of the City. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, February 25, 2009 Page 17 of 29