1994/07/21 City Council MinutesROHNERT PARK CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
July 21, 1994
The Council of the City of Rohnert Park met this date in special session
for consideration of settlement offer in mobile home parks litigation,
commencing at 6:30 p.m. in the Community Center Multi- Purpose Room,
5401 Snyder Lane, Rohnert Park, with Mayor Reilly presiding.
Approximately 120 residents signed the attendance record.
CALL TO ORDER Mayor Reilly called the special session to order at approximately 6:33
p.m.
ROLL CALL PRESENT: (4) Councilmembers Eck, Gallagher, Hollingsworth and
Mayor Reilly
ABSENT: (1) Councilwoman Spiro
Staff present for all or part of the meeting: City Manager Netter, City
Attorney Flitner, and Rent Appeals Board Secretary Tomkins.
Acknowledging Mayor Reilly acknowledged the City Manager /Clerk's report on the
Posting of Agenda: posting of the agenda.
Public Hearing: For the City Council to listen to public ideas concerning settlement offer
from mobile home park owners for outstanding litigation regarding
Ordinance 494 (rent control). Mayor Reilly welcomed the audience,
reviewed the purpose of the meeting, and stated that this was a Brown
Act meeting open to the general public.
1. City Attorney City Attorney Flitner reviewed the circumstances, details, and possible
Report outcomes of the settlement offer. The judge indicated that because
Ordinance 494 had no provisions for the direct pass- through of capital
improvements (citing Sierra Lakes), it could be declared unconstitutional.
The judge requested the parties to return on 8/5/94 with a report on any
settlement discussions among all parties affected by Ordinance 494
lawsuits.
Public Hearing Mayor Reilly stated that the City Council had made no decisions about
Opened the settlement offer and were vigorously pursuing appeals of Ordinance
494 lawsuits. He opened the public hearing at approximately 6:45 p.m.
Lorna Blanc, 43 Verde Circle (Five -Park Committee Chairperson and Rancho Verde
Residents Assn. President) read from her 7/21/94 memo hereby made a
part of these minutes. If negotiation was a viable option, a minimum
settlement should include dropping of all pending lawsuits, installing a
replacement rent control ordinance which would include vacancy control,
and reimbursement to residents of any paid Green Book rents. Benefits
of such a settlement might include removal of "back rents due" from
monthly statements and improved ability to sell coaches in Rohnert Park.
A $50 /month rental increase was unacceptable. Rancho Verde residents
should be excluded from any increase due to landlord petition increases
already awarded under Ordinance 494. If Ordinance 494 was declared
ROHNERT PARK CITY COUNCIL MINUTES (2) July 21, 1994
unconstitutional, appeals should be pursued and a new ordinance
considered.
Jonnie Perrot, 73 Toyon Court, (Five -Parks Committee - Valley Village), stated that a $50
increase was not equitable and that any settlement offer should evaluate
each park separately. She reviewed her four -page memo (attached and
made part of these minutes). The park owner may have violated state
code involving 15 -year leases. Park services had also greatly
deteriorated.
Marie Vinsick, 38 Estrella Drive (Five -Parks Committee- Rancho Feliz), stated that park
services were deficient and had deteriorated, citing examples she read
from a prepared report (no copy provided to City Council). She did not
support a $50 increase.
Violet Moir, 411 Sonoma Lane (Five -Parks Committee -Las Casitas), read from her 7/21/94
two -page memo (attached and made part of these minutes) which cited
possible advantages of an appropriate settlement. She was against a
$50 increase, claiming that park owners would then recover the $1.2
million estimated in the Sime #1 litigation within five years. She
proposed a lesser amount but asked the City to contribute support for
fixed income residents. She supported the County ordinance if
Ordinance 494 were ruled unconstitutional.
Robert Taylor, 241 Parque Cabana (Rancho Grande Resident Assn. Vice Chairman), stated
that a consensus of approximately 145 residents did not support the
settlement offer. Any negotiations should firmly address: 1) reduction of
the $50 increase which was exorbitant, 2) a clear definition of pass -
throughs (read from real estate definition of capital improvements, copy
provided), and 3) provision for vacancy control.
Pierre Snediker, 38 Berga (Rancho Feliz Residents Assn. Chairman), stated there was little
incentive to settle on what was a winnable lawsuit. Ordinance 494 could
be made constitutional if the November ballot gave the City Council
authority to amend the Ordinance. More time was needed to consider
and /or negotiate a more reasonable settlement offer.
Coleman Persily, 206 Yosemite Road, San Rafael ( GSMOL Regional Representative);
asserted that the Sime #1 (Green Book) judge ruled that residents were
not responsible for damages. Only the City was responsible for the
Green Book agreement. GSMOL had won every case on capital
improvement pass - through challenges. Park owners were getting a fair
return but would not open their books for scrutiny. He maintained that a
federal judge could be overruled by a state judge on capital improvement
issues and read from the state ordinance regarding base rent. He called
for a strong appeal eff ort of all litigation unfavorable to residents.
Lorraine Silva, 22 Walnut Circle (Valley Village), stated that the senior members of the
audience had paid their dues and demanded to be treated fairly.
Stan Miller, 154 Madrigal (Rancho Feliz), stated that it was the responsibility of the City
Council and staff to protect the residents. Residents were not
responsible for the Green Book agreement.
ROHNERT PARK CITY COUNCIL MINUTES (3) July 21, 1994
James Clark, 80 Walnut Circle (Valley Village), stated that he was a resident representative
during the Green Book negotiations and that it was to be a only guide,
not a contract. He did not support a $50 increase and urged the City
Council to appeal all unfavorable court decisions.
Helen Taylor, 57 Alfaro Court (Rancho Feliz Residents Assn.), stated that if capital improve-
ment pass - throughs were allowed, residents should decide what
upgrades or repairs were necessary. Residents deserved a safe place to
live. She did not support a $50 increase.
Katherine Collins, 828 Lilac Way (Rent Appeals Board Member, speaking as private citizen),
stated that all Rohnert Park citizens should have received a notice of this
meeting since the City's General Fund was and would be paying for all
legal costs. Citizens should be informed as to what was at risk before a
settlement decision was made.
Mayor Reilly confirmed with City Attorney Flitner that the judge requested
a response from the City regarding any settlement offer within 30 days.
This meeting was to get the mobile home residents response as a third
party affected by the lawsuits.
David Patton (Rancho Feliz resident) stated that the presence of park owner representatives
in the audience compromised resident discussion of settlement options.
Mayor Reilly stated that this meeting fell under the Brown Act provisions
due to the presence of a City Council quorum and must remain public to
all individuals. Councilman Eck stated that Councilmember response to
the public hearing should not reveal possible positions in settlement
negotiations, if any, due to the presence of park owner representatives.
Michael Trayes (Rancho Feliz resident) read from a prepared statement (attached and made
part of these minutes). If the City Council wanted a consensus of
residents, send a questionnaire and obtain a time extension to
thoroughly discuss any settlement offer. He asked for the City Council's
support for resident concerns.
David Spangenberg, 285 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA (park owners legal representative),
stated that he purposely did not attend the 7/20/94 information meeting
of the park residents with city staff and advised his clients not to attend in
order to preserve the residents' right of privacy. If Ordinance 494 were
declared unconstitutional, the park owners were prepared to collect rents
from Green Book noticed increases since 1988 which could approximate
$6,500 per space. He advised his clients to make the settlement offer in
order to avoid endless litigation and a possible doubling of the $6,500
back rents per space. He was available to answer any questions.
Richard Brody, 1313 Megan Place (Rent Appeals Board Chairman, speaking as private
citizen), stated that the issues involved in all the Ordinance 494 lawsuits
was complicated and asked residents to remember the big picture. All
parties were entitled to stability, predictability, good relations, avoidance
of future risks, no large increases, and peace of mind. He urged the
residents to negotiate in good faith in order to determine if those benefits
could be attained.
ROHNERT PARK CITE' COUNCIL MINUTES (4) July 21, 1994
Arthur E. Anderson, 240 Walnut Circle (Valley Village), maintained that the Green Book was
not a legal contract since no residents approved or signed it. The state
might allow that one party can make contractual agreements for the
benefit of another, but the Green Book benefits only the park owners. He
called for a class action suit by residents to recover rents obtained
illegally over the past years. He submitted a written statement to the City
Council (attached and made part of these minutes).
Geneva Trent, 147 Walnut Circle (Valley Village), stated that a $50 increase was outrageous
and in violation of Ordinance 494. The City Council signed the Green
Book but the residents rejected it. If a portion was found invalid,
Ordinance 494 should continue and be amended by the citizens as
follows: 1) annual general adjustment cost -of- living (CPI) increased from
4% to 5% ceiling, 2) NOI formula increased from 60% to 75% of CPI, and
3) City held responsible for any of the costs in the litigation.
Unidentified resident from Valley Village read from the first paragraph of the United States
Constitution. She stated that the residents were tenacious and would
confront the park owners' pursuit of rent increases.
Allan Tacy (Rancho Verde resident) stated that any settlement at this time would not prevent
the issue of unconstitutionality of any rent ordinance from arising again.
Mubar Bednos (mobile home resident) stated that a $50 increase (23 %) was too much.
Unidentified resident called for residents to inform the newspapers and to picket businesses,
telling the residents' story.
Robert Sirpless (Rancho Grande GSMOL President) stated that Mr. Spangenberg made a
threatening statement that the residents would pay over $6,000 if a
settlement was not reached. He called for postponement of any decision
and more time to deliberate among residents.
Mr. Metcalf (Rancho Grande resident) stated he had a mobile home on sale for over two
years and could not sell due to a $75 -$100 rent increase for any new
owner.
,lonnie Perrot confirmed with City Attorney Flitner that Mr. Spangenberg's statement of a
possible $12,000 in back rents was erroneous as the Green Book
damages stopped at its expiration date of 4/95.
LaVerne Mikesell, 301 Rustic Lane (Valley Village), requested that residents who sold mobile
homes and paid any back rents under Sime #1 damages be reimbursed
if the City won the appeal.
Coleman Persily asked the City Council to order an injunction against collection of Green
Book rents and to demand repayment from park owners.
David Rostov, 39 Walnut Circle (Valley Village), requested residents to gain strength from
their unity of purpose. He called for a recognition of the difference
between apartments and mobile home parks. He was against a $50
increase and asked for a fair settlement for all parties.
Homer Goodwin, Katherine McCallin, and Nina Vale all submitted speaker cards but did not
speak.
ROHNERT PARK CITY COUNCIL MINUTES (5) July 21, 1994
Close of Public There being no one further wanting to be heard, Mayor Reilly closed the
Hearing public hearing at approximately 8:10 p.m. Councilman Eck asked for
direction from City Attorney Flitner regarding Council discussion. City
Attorney Flitner advised the Council to conduct any settlement
discussions during a closed session to preserve the City's options and
deliberations before possible offer, if any, to park owners.
Councilman Gallagher stated that it was clear what the residents wanted
and that no negotiations would take place with park owner
representatives present. Councilman Hollingsworth thanked the
audience for their input and that he would reserve his comments for
closed session. Councilman Eck stated that the City Council has aggres-
sively pursued appeals of all litigation against Ordinance 494 and had an
emergency ordinance available if Ordinance 494 were declared unconsti-
tutional. He would appreciate legal support from the GSMOL but did not
appreciate erroneous allegations that the City Council did not support the
ordinance. Mayor Reilly cited his personal experience as a mobile home
resident. The process was to report back to the judge on 8/5/94 and that
information would be provided regarding the outcome.
Adjournment There being no further business before the City Council, Mayor Reilly
adjourned the special session at approximately 8:15 p.m. to Tuesday,
July 26, 1994, at 6:00 p.m. for the regularly scheduled meeting of the
City Council at Council Chambers, City Hall, 6750 Commerce Boulevard,
Rohnert Park.
Secretary
eaiY',41-9d X
� NTER —OFF = CE i�[Er�.ORt'�.N�i'i..ivi
TO: Joseph D. Netter, City Mgr
RE: 7/20/94 INFORMATION MEETING
WITH MOBILE HOME RESIDENTS
FROM: Diane Tomkins
Rent Appeals Board Staff
DATE: July 20, 1994
On 7/20/94, City Manager Netter and City Attorney Flitner met with
approximately 275 mobile home residents to discuss the settlement
offer in the Sime #1 litigation (Green Book contract). The purpose
was to explain the offer, answer questions, discuss options, and
obtain the viewpoints of the residents prior to the City Council
public hearing the following evening. A quorum of Rent Appeals Board
Members was present but they did not participate. Major points were
as follows:
If Ordinance 494 were ruled unconstitutional, possible City
Council actions:
• Issue a 90 -day moratorium.
• Prevent any rent increases for a 90 -day period.
• Hold public hearings for a more suitable ordinance.
• New ordinance would only be effective 30 days after date of
adoption, not retroactively. It could be challenged as
violating the Green Book contract which expires 4/95.
• Park owners may try to collect rents noticed under the
Green Book contract since 1988, if Ordinance 494 was ruled
as invalid.
If Ordinance 494 ruled unconstitutional, what effect on other
appeals?
• Those courts decisions already decided and not appealed
would remain the same (such as Sime #2 -Las Casitas).
• If appeal is pending, remaining issues in each appeal would
continue to be debated in court, such as past due rent
under the Green Book in Sime #1 (five -park owners lawsuit).
• It could be argued that any landlord petition rent increase
granted under Ordinance 494 would be invalid. But Green
Book rental rates may then be applied.
■ If Ordinance 494 ruled unconstitutional, City could pursue
appeal to next higher court.
• City is vigorously pursuing the appeal on Sime #1 (Green Book)
contract. It has been delayed by the court to the fall.
■ November ballot asks the citizens to allow the City Council to
amend Ordinance 494 after public hearing. They could then
address such problems as a fair capital improvement pass- through
provision if the courts required.
■ if a settlement is reached, all lawsuits would be stopped. If
no settlement, then uncertain future through ongoing appeals.
City General Fund is currently paying for all appeal expenses.
(OVER)
- 2 -
July 20, 1994
Main Concerns from Residents (not a total list but a summary):
■ Vigorously pursue appeals so that park owners do not use
Ordinance 494 as example of unconstitutionality of rent control
in California.
• Why were park owners entitled to rent increases when physical
conditions and reduced or eliminated services continued in some
parks?
n v i t c p r v p v s a 4 }. u 0 +a^ ., ; -P i v - a a ........ .... -+ .+ ..I.=..- .0 + o,.ic.. rm c air7I- -Z
1) $25 or less increase; 2)L clearly definition of capital
improvements; and 3) vacancy control (Rancho Grande Residents
Association strongly in favor).
■ Each park's situation should be studied and any settlement
should take their needs into consideration.
■ Some residents have already paid the Green Book rents;
settlement should include a refund of those rents.
■ People who signed leases are subject to 6% increase per year,
less than rent control. Why can't we work together so everyone
could get fair rental agreements?
■ Some residents are not told there is rent control when they move
in to a park. New coach owners are forced to sign leases.
■ Some monthly statements have $5,000 to $8,000 of back rents
listed. What are these? Answer: The difference between
Ordinance 494 rents and those allowed under the Green Book which
are part of the $1.2 million in damages being appealed in the
Sime 41 lawsuit.
■ Residents did not sign the Green Book agreement and any
settlement would be in violation of Ordinance 494.
■ Residents should bargain from a position of strength; find the
park owners' weak point.
■ Willing to pay cost -of- living increases, but $50 is too high.
■ Get extension from Judge Smith on 8/5/94 so residents and City
could discuss possible settlement or other solutions.
■ It was premature to consider any settlement before a decision on
constitutionality. Answer: The cart is before the horse
because the judge requested the parties (City, park owners, and
residents) to consider settling all lawsuits before she issued
such a far reaching decision.
■ Would a park purchase program be affected? Answer: Such a
program requires a willing seller plus reasonable price of the
property. The City was continuing the program for three parks
in the redevelopment area. Bonds would be sold to finance a
deal.
■ $50 is not acceptable. The park owners were trying to force
people to sign leases. Then any rent control ordinance would be
ineffective with so few spaces left on month -to -month rental.
■ GSMOL attorneys had won some victories concerning these issues.
Don't back down; continue with the appeals.
■ Asked City to assist renters to meet the rent increase demand if
settlement worked out.
• A rental assistance program such as PG &E's would only work for
very low income residents; most residents' income fell just
above the criteria for such programs. It won't help them.
�1
Date: July 21, 1994
To: City Council
From: Lorna Blanc, Rancho Verde Representative to the Five Parks Committee
Subject: Proposed Settlement Offer from Park Owner
The Five Parks Committee has been discussing the issues involved in the proposed
settlement offer presented to the City by the park owners' attorney. We have tried, in
good faith, to look at this from all perspectives and have tried to consider the
consequences of the different potential outcomes. However, it is a complex issue, and
don't feel that we were able to reach a definite, conclusive concensus on whether the
City should follow the appeal path or the negotiation path.
We can see how a settlement, particularly one which did not cost the City money, could
be attractive to the City. We do feel that, if the City should decide that negotiation is a
viable option, any proposed counter offer should include, as a minimum, the following:
• all pending lawsuits brought by the park owners against the City would be dropped,
• ability for the City to implement a replacement Ordinance, which would provide
vacancy control, such as the draft based on the County of Sonoma Ordinance, and
• any resident who has already paid the 'green book' money would be reimbursed.
Benefits to the residents which might come from such a settlement would include:
dropping of the 'green book' balance from rent statements, a practice which I
personally feel is a form of intimidation and harrassment,
an improvment in the ability to sell our homes by not having to pay (or put into an
escrow account) the 'green book' balance and by having true vacancy control
provided by an Ordinance. When we have to lower our selling price to counter -act
the increase in space rent the new buyer will have to pay, I think there is a 'taking-
issue' regarding our property.
The 'sticking point' in this proposed settlement is the increase of the space rent. We all
agreed that $50 was not acceptable. We also felt that it was not possible for one
amount to be applied across the board to all five parks. The parks have different
situations which need to be taken into consideration when determining what amount, if
any, would be a fair amount for that park. The representatives from each park will speak
on items they feel you should consider for their park. There is also a feeling, among
some residents, that a settlement which includes an increase in space rent would mean
that the residents, rather than the City, would be, in effect, paying the 'green book'
damages to the owners.
If the City decides not to try to negotiate a settlement, or if a settlement cannot be
gre°r1 upon and Ordinance 4a,, ie rj °rlor °rl 11nr ^no +i+11+i ^nn1 +hn+ �°�i�i ^� should b°
1 VV 1.IV11, and Ordinance 1 VU ✓T I,;- �.1VNIU1 VU NIIVVI1Jt11.t1UV11G11, that Iv 1 V 1 1 N
appealled. The appeal of the decision would offer more protection for the residents, and
probably for the City, than trying to implement a new Ordinance without a settlement.
As pointed out at the meeting last night, an appeal would allow the City time to amend
the Ordinance after November, if the referendum granting the City this authority passes.
Wouia nKe to aaaress the space rent situation at Rancho Verde. As you are probably
aware, Rancho Verde has had several large adjustments to the rent controlled space
rents during the last few years. We had a $80.30 increase from a petition filed in 1991,
and a $69.70 increase from a petition filed in 1992. The rent for my space has
increased 67% since we moved in, in 1989, from $275.31 to $460.01. This increase far
exceeds the 4.85% per year increase mentioned last night as the approximate
percentage on which the 'green book' damages were based. During the five years we
have lived at Rancho Verde, we have never received any notification from the park
showing what they felt the dollar amount difference was between our rent controlled rent
and the green book rent. The only times that these damages have been mentioned has
been in notices about leases, where it was indicated that if we signed a lease, we would
not be liable for any damages from the green book case, should the City decide to
collect them from the residents. I have also submitted a copy of the space registration
information sent to the City from Carlsberg Management, to show that as of March 1994,
the rent controlled space rents were as high, or higher, than the majority of the space
rents covered by a lease (where a sale has not occurred during the term of the lease). I
cannot see where any further increase of space rent would be justified for the rent
controlled spaces at Rancho Verde, and any increase from a settlement would not be
acceptable. As far as I can tell, the increases we have already received have more than
compensated our owner for any damages potentially due to him.
�.po n
Rent Calculations based up space rent for 43 Verde Circle, a space covered under
Ordinance 494 ( in Rancho Verde MHP)
Rent in 1989: $275.31
Rent in 1994: $460.01
$275.31 x 67% _ $184.46
$275.31 + $184.46 = $459.77
Calculations showing potential affect of green book increases for my space rent:
Rent in 1989 (when we moved in):
$275.31
Rent after 10% increase allowed by green
$302.84
book upon sale:
$357.84
Rent after 5% increase in 1990:
$317.98
Rent after 5% increase in 1991:
$333.88
Rent after 5% increase in 1992:
$350.57
Rent after 5°% increase in 1993:
$368.10
Rent after 5% increase in 1994:
$386.51
Same increases, but with the $50 increase in the base rent Mr. Goldstein is always
claiming in his petitions:
Rent in 1989 (when we moved in):
$275.31
Rent after $50 adjustment:
$325.31
Rent after 10°% allowed upon sale:
$357.84
Rent after 5% increase in 1990:
$375.73
Rent after 5% increase in 1991:
$394.52
Rent after 5°% increase in 1992:
$414.24
Rent after 5% increase in 1993:
$434.96
Rent after 5°% increase in 1994:
$456.70
BILL FOR Sep 1989 No 43
/ FROM
RANCHO VERDE
750 ROHNERT PARK EXPY W
ROHNERT PARK CA 94928
46aW 4621
i~255~!35
TV/RV
. W S T 15.03
TO RE CONT 4
BARRY 8LANC TAXES '19 ,�36
/
-~
ROHNERT
ACCOUNT 590043
White copy for
BILL'DUE ON FI|
PLEASE COME IN
PARK CA 94928
-THERM FACTOR 1.0100
tenant.
3ST - DELINQUENT AFTER 5 PM ON FIFTH.
TO SIGN NEW RULES AND REGULATIONS.
PAID / / AMT= RECD BY ADJ TOT
-
Jul 1994 No 43
BILL FOR
`
u RANCHO VERDE MHP WATER
750 ROHNERT PARK EXPY WESI GAS
ROHNERT PARK CA 94928 [ELEcT.
TO
BARRY BLANC
43 VERDE CIRCLE
ROHNERT PARK CA 94928
Ls�M 5/17
G1 2511 2545 34 35
E1 223 68
$359.78
i
Rent
460.01
TV/RV
RE CONT AS
10.00
4.97
590043 THERM FACTOR 1.0230 ( PLEASE PAY TOTAL
*`Cov/x/ �
White copy for tenant.
BILL DUE ON FIRST - DELINQUENT AFTER 5 PM ON FIFTH.
$582.42
PAID / / AMT= RECD BY ADJ TOT
-'
PROPERTY - ALL CARLSBERG MANAGEMENT COMPANY DATE: 03/04/94
SORT - UNIT TENANT LISTING TIME: 4:33 PM
`'TATUS - Current PAGE: 1
.J. UNIT TNT DATE LEASE CURRENT PMT
ID ID ID NAME 1 / NAME 2 / NAME 3 Sts IN / OUT BEG /END RENT FRa NOTES
Property: 651 - Rancho Verde Mobilehome
651
001
988 P. Moran
C
06/05/74
07/01/91
430.33 M
06/30/96
651
003
989
Thomas Frei
C
07/01/91
07/01/91
544.07 M
SEC Refunded 8/92 $924.20
06/30/96
651
004
1208
Managers
C
01/01/85
535.47 M
651
005
990
Catherine Carroll
C
06/14/83
06/01/91
440.30 M
05/31/96
651
006
991
Chris Fiedler
C
10101191
06/01/91
420.33 M
" ECE E D
05/31/96
i
651
007
992
S. Shurtliff
C
06/01/83
06/01/91
423.33 M
05/31/96
MAR 10 1994
651
008
993
G. Flores
C
06/14/83
05/01/91
420.33 M
04/30/96
CITY OF
651
009
994
Martha Knecht
C
05/19/87.
06/01/91
430.93 M
R O H N ERT PARK
05/31/96
651
010
995
Randy & Bobin Hawkey
C
11/01/89
03/01/92
473.94 M
02/28/97
651
011
996
M. Reed
C
01/08/77
06/01/91
423.33 M
05/31/96
012
997
M. Mullin
C
06/13/89
07/01/92
408.37 M
SEC Refunded 7/90 $516.42
06/30/00
651
013
998
Ronald Barber
C
05/01/90
05/01/91
420.33 M
04/30/96
651
015
999
R. Satin
C
08/02/76
07/01/92
420.33 M
06/30/00
651
017
1000
Kathy Ede
C
08/01/93
07/01/92•
- 470.99 M
06/30/00
651
019
1001
John Jackson
C
.09/01/89
07/01/92
436.33 M
06/30/00
651
020
1002
Roger Vreeland
C
08/01/90
06/01/91
430.33 M
05/31/96
651
021
1003
K & c Cowan
C
10/11/86
06/01/91
449.78 M'
05/31/96
651
022
1004
J. Rothaermel
C
05/12/88
06/01/91
435.35 M
05/31/96
651
023
1005
Gloria Garrett
C
06/01/90"07/01/91
..
430.33 M
SEC Refunded 3/12/92 $560.22
06/30/96
651
024
1006
Susan Preston
C
01/01/90
08/01/91.
M
.
•07/31/96
651
025
1007
Iva Strouss
C
04/01/91
04/01/91
554.96 M
03/31/96
651
027
1008
J. Heath
C
07/01/74
06/01/91
423.33 M.
05/31/96
6S1
029
1009
Ben & Margaret Del "era
C
05/01/86
03/01/92
457.94 M
02/28/97
oD1
030
1010
Lisa Witt
C
01/01/91
07/01/92 ..
404.80 M
SEC Refunded 8/92 $530.36
06/30/00
CARLSBERG MANAGEMENT COMPANY
DATE: 03104/94
ROPERTY
ALL
TIME: 4:34 PM
ORT
-
UNIT
TENANT LISTING
PAGE: 2
TATUS -
Current
DATE LEASE
CURRENT PMT
RO UNIT
TNT
ID NAME 1 / NAME 2 / NAME 3
Sts IN / OUT BEG /END
RENT FRQ NOTES
D
ID
C 03/01/92 10/01/91
487.38 M SEC Refunded 3/93 $819.27
1011 Michael & Julie Davies
51
031
09/30/96
51
032
1012 B. Giles
C 07/01/78 07/01/92
420.33 M
06/30/00
i51
033
1013 Duane & Virgie Hendrick
C 08/22/86 07/01/92
414.46 M
06/30/00
551
034
1014 David Mitts
C 06/01/90 07/01/92
436.43 M
06/30/00
551
035
1015 ELizebeth Martinez
C 03/01/88 05/01/91
432.58 M
04/30/96
551
036
1016 M. weeder
C 04/30/77 07/01/92
420.05 M
06/30/00
651
037
1017 D. Parcher
C 02/10/79 05/01/91
423.38 M
04/30/96
651
038
1018 Alma Bailey
C 04/05/85 03/01/92
473.28 M
02/28/97
651
039
1019 Dona Larkins
C 08/01/88 05/01/91
441.96 M
04/30/96
651
040
1020 Rebecca Hollingsworth
C 01/20/90 05/01/91
417.05 M SEC
Refunded 2/91 $560.20
04/30/96
651
041
1021 David Sylvia
C 09/15/87 05/01/91
453.68 M
04/30/96
651
042
1022 P.J Harrington
C 12/04/85 07/01/93
446.28 M
Exeline
06 /30/01
2-.38 M ; SEC
Refunded 6/93 5607.68
651
043
1023 Barry Blanc
C 09/01/89
464.77 M _
v SZJ Q Clyy7Cr- Y,' L P
651
044
1024 Irma Cassady
C 03/01 /88
467.82 M
t Q!l ( ; GO, 61
651
045
1025 Carolyn Kaehler
C 10/01/89
651
046
1026 J &C De Lair
C 12/05/86 07/01/92
453.68 M
06/30/00
651
047
1027 Robert Robertson
C 04/01/92 05/01/91
531.19 M
04/30/96
651
048
1028 C Long
C 05/09/82
06/01/91
495.20 M
503.61 M SEC
Refunded 7/92 $783.28
651
049
1029 Robert & Tonja Heckadan
C 07/01/91
05/31/96
651
051
1030 David Roskam
C 06/01/89 07/01/92
435.63 M
06/30/00
651
053
1031 Randy Ames
C 07/09/85 07/01/92
467.89 M
06/30/00
651
055
1032 Robyn Boswell
C 05/01/88 03/01/92
466.17 M
02/28/97
651
057
1298 Frank & Shannon Zito
C 01/01/94 07/01/92
508.72 M
06/30/00
651
059
1034 Phillips
C 10/02/86 07/01/93
467.33 M
06/30/01
651
061
1035 J Behrends
C 06/21/76 07/01/92
473.28 M
06/30/97
651
063
1036 Alonzo Jacinto
C 09/20/80 07/01/92
420.10 M
06/30/00
651 065
1037 D Maynard
C 06/06/79
486.80 M
'ROPERTY
TORT -
TUS
ALL
UNIT
Current
CARLSBERG MANAGEMENT COMPANY
TENANT LISTING
DATE: 03/04/94
TIME: 4:35 PM
PAGE: 3
IRO
UNIT
TNT
DATE
LEASE
CURRENT
PMT
D
ID
ID
NAME 1 / NAME 2 / NAME 3
Sts
IN / OUT
BEG /END
RENT
FRQ
NOTES
51
067
1038
Camille Bennett
C
05/01/88
07/01/92
463.58
M
06/30/97
X51
069
1039
Audrey Barnett
C
09/03/92
05/01/91
477.98
M
04/30/96
X51
071
1040
Gail E Henderson
C
01/15/88
03/01/92
500.27
M
02/28/97
51
073
1041
Kowaski
C
08/06/79
04/01/92
473.28
M
K Nagy
03/31/97
51
075
1042
R Lawler
C
10/01/83
03/01/92
457.33
M
02/28/97
51
077
1043
Marshall Fenstermaker
C
09/03/92
03/01/92
594.36
M
02/28/97
51
079
1044
Lorette Haynes
C
08/01/89
05/01/91
446.36
M
SEC Refunded 9/90 $594.06
04/30/96
,51
080
1045
M/B Towle
C
02/28/87
07/01/91
494.97
M
06/30/96
,51
081
1046
G Boles
C
01/31/76
06/01/91
465.63
M
05/31/96
,51
082
1047
Colleen Goveia
C
03/01/93
03/01/92
520.76
M
02/28/97
51
083
1048
Eleonore Miller
C
05/01/84
06/01/91
420.10
M
05/31/96
085
1049
Brian Newcomer.
C
07/01/90
05/01/93
485.47
M
04/30/01
,51
087
1050
Wilma Husk
C
04/19/84
03/01/92
473.23
M
02/28/97
�51
089
1051
K Walker
C
04/01/79
03/01/92
473.28
M
02/28/97
,51
091
1052
W Ruf
C
05/01/78
03/01/92
460.32
M
02/28/97
51
093
1053
L. Shubert
C
04/01/80
05/01/92
476.28
M
04/30/97
51
095
1054
Jack Irick
C
03/01/89
03/01/92
473.72
M
02/28/97
51
097
1055
Sandra L Werner
C
03/01/91
03/01/91
551.91
M
SEC Refunded 4/2/92 $972.14
02/28/96
51
099
1056
James Palmer
C
12/01/89
07/01/92
456.67
M
SEC Refunded 5/16/91 $613.68
06/30/00
51
100
1057
Scott Fosnight
C
12/12/85
07/01/91
471.48
M
06/30/96
51
101
1058
R Watson
C
07/01/77
05/01/91
435.58
M
04/30/96
51
101C
1059
C. Blackburn
C
07/03/81
07/01/92
420.93
M
06/30/00
51
102C
1060
Bret Francis Mills
C
07/01/91
06/01/91
459.83
M
SEC Refunded 7/16/92 $755.16
05/31/96
103
1062
Charlotte Eastham
C
06/01/89
07/01/91
433.38
M
06/30/96
51
103C
1061
David Chaney
C
10/01/88
07/01/92
463.34
M
06/30/00
PROPERTY ALL
SORT UNIT
STATUS Current
PRO UNIT TNT
ID ID ID NAME 1 / NAME 2 / NAME 3
651 104 1063 Edward & Shirley Temple
651 104C 1064 R Parks
651 105 1065 Mary Strauss
1066 Jan Crook
1067 Elleanor Knight
1068 Sherlee Lott
1070 Sean & Rebecca Hill
1071 Terry Silverman
1072 Velda Hoover
1073 David Welsh
1074 M Treadwell
1075 Hans Waldspurger
1076 V MC Innis
1077 C Rhodes
1078 S Lehman
1079 A Vemulen
1080 Steve Collins
1081 Ann Bailey
1082 Michelle & Sonia Detacruz
1083 Sea Stratton
1084 Marion L Stickler
1085 A Perez
1086 J Capehart
1087 W Hampton
1088 C Campbell
CARLSBERG MANAGEMENT COMPANY DATE: 03/04/94
TENANT LISTING TIME: 4:36 PM
PAGE: 4
Sts
DATE
IN / OUT
LEASE
BEG /END
CURRENT
RENT
PMT
FRO NOTES
C
11/15/84
03/01/92
473.59
M
02/28/97
C
09/12/80
07/01/92
450.33
M
06/30/00
C
06/01/91
05/01/91
477.29
M
04/30/96
C
09/21/87
05/01/91
482.94
M
04/30/96
C
06/01/91
06/01/91
568.76
M
05/30/96
C
06/01/91
06/01/91
551.91
M SEC Refunded 10/92 $966.00
05/30/96
C
05/01/93
05/01/91
471.58
M
04/30/96
C
08/01/87
07/01/92
456.03
M
06/30/00
C
12/01/78
07/01/92
420.33
M
06/30/00
C
04/01/93
05/01/91
434.21
M
04/30/96
C
07/01/77
07/01/92
423.33
M
06/30/00
C
12/01/92
07/01/92
467.93
M
06/30/00
C
05/03/76
04/01/92
460.69
M
03/31/97
C
11/01/80
03/01/92
457.64
M
02/28/97
C
10/01/81
05/01/91
438.90
M
04/30/96
C
12/01/79
07/01/92
420.33
M
06/30/00
C
11/01/81
07/01/92
423.38
M
06/30/00
C
09/01/87
06/01/91
439.23
M
05/31/96
C
11/01/89
07/01/92
420.33
M
06/30/00
C
06/01/87
07/01/92
440.44
M
06/30/00
C
06/01/89
03/01/92
458.72
M SEC Refunded 12/90 $547.30
02/28/97
C
12/01/79
06/01/91
433.38
M
05/31/96
C
05/01/88
04/01/92
548.04
M
03/31/97
C
11/01/79
07/01/93
435.85
M
06/30/01
C
09/12/85
03/01/92
484.98
M
02/28/97
'ROPERTY - ALL
>ORT - UNIT
TUS - Current
CARLSBERG MANAGEMENT COMPANY
TENANT LISTING
>RO UNIT TNT DATE LEASE CURRENT PMT
iD ID ID NAME 1 / NAME 2 / NAME 3 Sts IN / OUT BEG /END RENT FRQ NOTES
DATE: 03/04/94
TIME: 4:36 PM
PAGE: 5
1089 R Mc Afee
C
09/01/77
07/01/92
423.33 M
06/30/00
1090 J Box
C
12/01/75
03/01/92
460.69 M
02/28/97
1091 G Brice
C
07/01/80
05/01/91
453.38 M
04/30/96
1092 D Scharfe
C
09/01/80
04/01/92
460.69 M
03/31/97
1093 Lynn Cain
C
07/01/88
03/01/92
542.70 M
02/28/97
1094 Madrid Wittier
C
06/01/90
03/01/92
526.18 M
SEC Refunded 6/91 $632.92
02/28/97
1095 Corry Sonoma
C
04/01/78
471.20 M
1096 Cindy Mondino
C
03/01/93
10/01/91
483.63 M
09/30/96
1097 B Browne
C
11/08/79
03/01/92
476.64 M
02/28/97
1098 Fiorillo
C
09/01/85
472.22 M
1099 Tim & Mary Lynch
C
04/01/86
03/01/92
478.13 M
02/28/97
1100 S Scobee
C
11/01/79
07/01/92
441.90 M
06/30/00
1101 Gary & Anita Jocius
C
08/03/86
03/01/92
491.83 M
02/28/97
1102 B Silk
C
06/01/81
03/01/92
476.64 M
02/28/97
1103 Ray Thompson
C
03/01/83
03/01/92
488.03 M
02/28/97
1104 Joe Graham
C
11/01/92
03/01/92
580.24 M
SEC Refunded 12/93 $1077.88
02/28/97
1105 Larry Bennett
C
07/01/90
03/01/92
476.64 M
SEC Refunded 2/92 $596.34
02/28/97
1106 Ed Mulligan
C
07/01/93
07/01/92
489.09 M
06/30/00
1107 Rancho Verde MHP
C
07/01/93
05/01/91
425.48 M
Assistant Managers Unit
04/30/96
1108 De Anna CampeLl
C
08/01/93
08/01/93
520.56 M
07/31/01
1109 G F Muldowney
C
07/01/87
03/01/92
494.83 M
02/28/97
1110 WilLene GLines
C
09/01/90
07/01/92
420.33 M
SEC Refunded 10/14/93
06/30/00
$560.22
1111 W Wilson
C
11/01/85
07/01/92
426.78 M
06/30/00
1112 Cecilia Bain
C
09/05/86
07/01/92
436.43 M
06/30/00
1113 K Skinner
C
03/14/84
07/01/92
446.93 M
06/30/00
1114 Richard Wynn
C
09/01/87
04/01/92
491.54 M
03/31/97
PROPERTY - ALL
SORT UNIT
STATUS Current
CARLSBERG MANAGEMENT COMPANY
TENANT LISTING
DATE: 03/04/94
TIME: 4:37 PM
PAGE: 6
PRO
ID
UNIT
ID
TNT
ID
NAME 1 / NAME 2 / NAME 3
Sts
DATE
IN / OUT
LEASE
BEG /END
CURRENT
RENT
PMT
FRQ
NOTES
651
152
1115
I McGrew
C
05/01/79
07/01/92
423.33
M
06/30/00
651
153
1116
Tim Mancusi
C
06/01/91
05/01/91
459.83
M
04/30/96
651
154
1117
Rick Erich
C
07/08/86
03/01/92
482.1Z
M
02/28/97
651
155
1118
Tract Leoni
C
12/01/93
12/01/93
485.42
M
11/30/01
651
156
1119
Christina Swearenger
C
09/01/92
06/01/91
496.55
M
SEC Refunded 12/93 $910.70
05/31/96
651
157
1120
A Graves
C
07/01/81
03/01/92
463.64
M
02/28/97
651
158
1121
M. Graves
C
12/01/93
12/01/93
555.62
M
E. Slodow
11/30/01
651
159
1122
J Woodruff
C
08/01/77
05/01/91
404.80
M
04/30/96
651
161
1123
J Simmons
C
08/01/91
05/01/91
465.88
M
SEC Refunded 12/93 $768.24
C Rousah
04/30/96
651
163
1124
Dan McCall
C
05/01/92
06/01/91
442.84
M
05/31/96
651
164
1125
L Dent
C
06/02/75
03/01/92
487.64
M
02/28/97
651
165
1126
R Bowers
C
06/01/77
03/01/92
487.64
M
02/28/97
651
167
1127
John Lynde
C
09/01/90
03/01/92
442.13
M
02/28/97
651
168
1128
W Graham
C
10/30/80
03/01/92
442.13
M
02/28/97
651
169
1129
D Hamilton
C
05/01/87
07/01/92
420.33
M
06/30/00
651
171
1130
Thomas McGowan
C
06/01/90
05/01/91
420.33
M
04/30/96
651
172
1131
A Hill
C
03/01/80
03/01/92
457.64
M
02/28/97
651
173
1132
Rochelle Nielsen
C
07/01/90
05/01/91
404.80
M
SEC Refunded 7/91 $530.36
04/30/96
651
175
1133
Lnda Howse
C
10101177
03/01/92
460.64
M
02/28/97
651
176
1134
C Looney
C
05/01/88
07/01/92
414.06
M
06/30/00
651
177
1297
Geneieve McLean
C
01/01/94
01/01/94
485.47
M
12/31/02
651
179
1136
Donette Richardson
C
12/01/93
12/01/93
475.93
M
11/30/01
651
180
1137
Morris Ward
C
05/01/89
06/01/91
433.33
M
SEC Refunded
05/31/96
651
181
1138
Edward Charbonneau
C
12/01/90
08/01/91
433.33
M
SEC Refunded 12/91 $566.22
07/31/96
651
183
1139
R Dunn
C
05/01/85
04/01/92
467.89
M
03/31/97
OPERTY -
iRT -
"is -
ALL
UNIT
Current
CARLSBERG MANAGEMENT COMPANY
TENANT LISTING
DATE: 03/04/94
TIME: 4:37 PM
PAGE: 7
0 UNIT
TNT
DATE
LEASE
CURRENT
PMT
ID
ID
NAME 1 / NAME 2 / NAME 3
Sts
IN / OUT
BEG /END
RENT
FRQ
NOTES
1 184
1140
Laura Pierce
C
02/01/90
05/01/91
436.43
M
04/30/96
1 185
1141
Ralph Antonio
C
11/01/89
04/01/92
442.13
M
SEC Refunded 11/1/90 $517.22
03/31/97
1 187
1142
Jimmy Lee
C
12/01/93
12/01/93
482.92
M
11/30/01
1 188
1143
M Jones
C
05/01/85
07/01/92
446.93
M
06/30/00
1 189
1144
Virginia Stilwell
C
05/01/76
05/01/93
405.23
M
04/30/01
1 191
1145
Lucille Piccirillo
C
07/05/88
458.02
M
1 192
1146
B Fields
C
10/01/83
471.15
M
1 193
1147
R Pinckard
C
10/22/76
498.15
M
1 195
1148
Kim Hernandez
C
09/01/90
05/01/91
433.62
M
SEC Refunded 4/8/93 $585.78
04/30/96
1 200
1149
Henryetta Zak
C
10/01/89
03/01/92
491.83
M
02/28/97
1 201
1150
8 Abel
C
11/01/86
04/01/92
491.83
M
03/31/97
it 202
1151
Brian Skanderson
C
12/01/87
05/01/93
474.15
M
04/30/01
203
1152
Ken Woodle
C
06/01/88
06/01/91
474.81
M
05/31/96
0 204
1153
Mike Rohlena
C
04/01/93
05/01/91
505.62
M
04/30/96
it 205
1154
Gail Machado
C
04/15/87
06/01/91
488.05
M
05/31/96
it 206
1155
Charlie Edmonson
C
01/01/75
04/01/92
460.69
M
03/31/97
it 207
1156
Kenneth Phillips
C
10/01/91
08/01/91
530.11
M
SEC Refunded 2/12/93 $896.70
07/31/96
it 208
1157
R Kraft
C
12/01/79
03/01/92
479.64
M
02/28/97
it 209
1158
Marquis
C
06/01/86
08/01/91
465.47
M
Bickerton
07/31/96
51 210
1159
E Stommel
C
07/01/78
05/01/91
438.90
M
04/30/96
51 211
1160
Kakata
C
08/01/77
05/01/91
441.90
M
04/30/96
51 212
1161
B Casey
C
01/01/82
07/01/92
442.70
M
06/30/00
51 213
1162
E Parks
C
08/01/77
07/01/92
444.90
M
06/30/00
51 300
1163
Christa Mack
C
04/01/86
05/01/91
455.48
M-
04/30/96
51 301
1164
Vicki Link
C
11/01/91
06/01/91
564.73
M
Ulrich
05/31/96
302
1165
Phil Marshall
C
06/01/89
07/01/92
436.87
M
06/30/00
PROPERTY -
SORT -
STATUS -
ALL
UNIT
Current
CARLSBERG MANAGEMENT COMPANY
TENANT LISTING
DATE: 03/04/94
TIME: 4:38 PM
PAGE: 8
PRO
UNIT
TNT
DATE
LEASE
CURRENT PMT
ID
ID
ID NAME 1 / NAME 2 / NAME 3
Sts
IN / OUT
BEG /END
RENT FRQ
NOTES
651
303
1166 Ruth Wallace
C
07/01/90
07/01/92
453.55 M
SEC Refunded 8/8/91 $617.66
06/30/00
651
304
1167 Poasi
C
10/01/90
05/01/91
474.05 M
Lauralee Misi
04/30/96
651
305
1168 Kathy Koski
C
02/01/91
03/01/92
476.74 M
SEC Refunded 3/92 $625.02
02/28/97
651
306
1169 Sharon Brunson
C
08/01/92
06/01/91
493.50 M
SEC Refunded 8/93 $903.48
05/31/96
651
307
1170 Robert Bennett
C
05/01/87
04/01/92
497.83 M
03/31/97
651
308
1171 Lois Gulledge
C
08/01/89
05/01/92
491.82 M
04/30/97
651
309
1172 Monica Apple
C
01/01/92
05/01/91
492.88 M
04/30/96
651
310
1173 P P Crist
C
03/01/79
05/01/91
438.90 M
04/30/96
651
311
1174 R Slade
C
11/01/79
03/01/92
476.64 M
02/28/97
651
312
1175 Gorden Martin
C
08/01/87
502.38 M
651
313
1176 Barbara Quayle
C
12/01/87
05/01/93
467.12 M
04/30/01
651
314
1177 J Phalen
C
12/01/83
471.20 M
651
315
1178 Thomas Osborne
C
04/01/88
505.98 M
651
316
1179 Ann Sutherland
C
12/01/93
05/01/91
511.72 M
04/30/96
651
317
1180 Stephens Oats
C
04/01/93
03/01/92
523.50 M
02/28/97
651
318
1181 Patricia Conlon
C
12/01/93
07/01/92
528.32 M
06/30/00
651
319
1182 E Castro
C
01/01/90
07/01/92
438.90 M
L Sabogal
06/30/00
651
320
1183 B Morgan
C
03/01/79
04/01/92
479.64 M
03/30/97
651
321
1184 M Williams
C
07/01/83
07/01/92
435.85 M
06/30/00
651
400
1185 Alex & Terri Sunberg
C
08/01/86
535.93 M
651
401
1186 H Leyton
C
08/01/83
05/01/91
498.90 M
04/30/96
651
402
1187 Leonaedo Cedeno
C
07/01/89
06/01/91
441.90 M
SEC Refunded 7/11/90 $586.14
05/31/96
651
403
1188 Judy Holton
C
05/01/90
05/01/91
438.69 M
SEC Refunded 2/92 $595.94
04/30/96
651
404
1189 D Williams
C
07/01/85
07/01/92
477.62 M
06/30/00
651
405
1190 Mary Hauser
C
08/01/89
05/01/92
477.05 M
04/30/96
651
406
1191 Sue Ferrari
C
07/01/84
03/01/92
476.59 M
02/28/97
651
407
1192 Vickie Olivaries
C
07/01/92
05/01/91
484.71 M
04/30/96
IROPERTY ALL
iORT UNIT
'TUS Current
SRO UNIT TNT
;D ID ID NAME 1 / NAME 2 / NAME 3
CARLSBERG MANAGEMENT COMPANY
TENANT LISTING
DATE LEASE
Sts IN / OUT BEG /END
1193
Frank T Baroni
C
07/01/84
07/01/92
06/30/00
1194
Patricia Coe
C
03/04/90
04/01/92
03/31/97
1195
Joy Kinzer
C
01/01/84
06/01/91
05/31/96
1196
P Bonilla
C
05/01/87
03/01/92
02/28/97
1197
Lisa Kinney
C
12/01/92
03/01/92
02/28/97
1198
Susan Young
C
05/01/86
07/01/92
06/30/00
1199
A Swank
C
02/01/84
03/01/92
02/28/97
1200
Frank Harvey
C
10/01/85
07/01/92
06/30/00
1201
J Moreira
C
05/06/81
03/01/92
02/28/97
1203
Carl Peterson
C
07/01/89
07/01/92
06/30/00
1204
Elizabeth Matson
C
02/01/87
05/01/91
04/30/96
1209
R.E. Dahn, Jr
C
09/01/84
1210
Karen Leal
C
05/01/93
03/01/92
02/28/97
1211
Cheryl Clayton
C
07/01/89
04/01/92
03/31/97
1212
D. Steed
C
11/23/82
03/01/92
02/28/97
1213
Agnello Romano
C
12/01/92
12/01/92
11/30/97
1214
P. Howerton
C
09/01/80
03/01/92
02/28/97
1215
Kevin & Cathy Bower
C
05/01/93
02/02/93
01/31/01
1216
James Addison
C
04/01/90
04/01/92
03/31/97
1217
R Burgan
C
05/01/82
03/01/92
02/28/97
1218
Margit Davis
C
06/01/89
1219
Debbie Clarkson
C
08/01/92
10/01/91
09/30/96
1220
Derek & Barbara Moore
C
04/01/86
07/01/92
06/30/00
1221
Brent & Susan Doan
C
02/01/91
07/01/92
06/30/00
1222
Deborah L Gregory
C
11/01/92
07/01/91
06/30/96
1223
Wendi Read
C
08/01/88
07/01/92
06/30/00
DATE: 03/04/94
TIME: 4:39 PM
PAGE: 9
CURRENT PMT
RENT FRQ NOTES
423.38 M
466.64 M
449.00 M
491.83 M
585.33 M
491.40 M
493.69 M
482.29 M
476.64 M
468.90 M SEC Refunded 1/91 $580.14
486.15 M
471.20 M
524.72 M
488.59 M
482.64 M
546.20 M
460.69 M
533.04 M
462.33 M
460.69 M
484.11 M SEC Refunded 12/27/90 $580.14
530.49 M SEC Refunded 8/5/93 $908.58
440.37 M
497.74 M SEC Refunded 7/16/92 $676.58
514.79 M
452.49 M SEC Refunded 6/25/92 $289.00
PROPERTY -
SORT
STATUS
ALL
UNIT
Current
CARLSBERG MANAGEMENT COMPANY
TENANT LISTING
DATE: �' 19
03/ 04
TIME: 4:39 PM
PAGE: 10
PRO
UNIT
TNT
DATE
LEASE
CURRENT PMT
ID
ID
ID NAME 1 / NAME 2 / NAME 3
Sts
IN / OUT
BEG /END
RENT FRO
NOTES
651
516
1224 Debbie Erickson
C
06/12/89
07/01/92
429.45 M
SEC Refunded 12/6/91 $555.90
06/30/00
651
517
1225 R Rush
C
01/01/83
07/01/92
442.08 M
06/30/00
651
600
1226 Mabel Tonkin
C
08/01/90
06/01/91
487.05 M
SEC Refunded 2/7/92 $670.18
05/31/96
651
601
1227 Toni Di Bartolo
C
07/01/86
03/01/92
494.40 M
02/28/97
651
602
1228 Randy Scott
C
02/01/93
03/01/92
611.30 M
02/28/97
651
603
1229 Batitbit
C
06/01/85
03/01/92
488.03 M
02/28/97
651
604
1230 Thomas King
C
07/01/88
03/01/92
476.64 M
02/28/97
651
605
1231 Vickie Swing
C
02/01/90
03/01/92
460.69 M
SEC Refunded 4/17/91 $560.22
02/28/97
651
606
1232 Chris Lewis
C
03/01/90
04/01/92
478.46 M
03/31/97
651
607
1233 M Mattos
C
08/01/80
07/01/92
438.90 M
06/30/00
651
608
1234 Brad Anderson
C
06/01/89
03/01/92
460.69 M
02/28/97
651
609
1235 Beverly Bowen
C
12/01/92
07/01/92
438.85 M
06/30/00
651
610
1236 D Corcoran
C
10/01/76
07/01/92
435.85 M
06/30/00
651
611
1237 R Matoata
C
03/01/82
07/01/92
435.85 M
06/30/00
651
612
1238 Christine Taha
C
11/01/91
06/01/91
489.75 M
SEC Refunded 11/92 $823.06
05/31/96
651
613
1239 Greg Cato
C
08/01/89
03/01/92
479.62 M
02/28/97
651
614
1240 Margaret Johnson
C
11/01/85
05/01/93
460.63 M
04/30/01
651
615
1241 Charles Larson
C
07/01/89
07/01/92
471.05 M
06/30/00
651
616
1242 Ernest & Rosemary Gtenn
C
10/01/93
10/01/93
511.16 M
09/30/01
651
617
1243 Lilly Apadaca
C
08/01/90
05/01/91
423.38 M
SEC Refunded 8/91 $566.50
04/30/96
651
618
1244 William Gamet
C
06/01/91
05/01/91
481.05 M
04/30/96
651
619
1245 Olive Brashears
C
08/01/84
07/01/92
435.85 M
06/30/00
651
620
1246 Terry Baker
C
12/08/86
07/01/92
516.81 M
06/30/00
651
700
1247 P Dorothy Malone
C
06/01/85
07/01/92
471.05 M
06/30/00
651
701
1248 Earl Titman
C
09/01/83
07/01/91
448.90 M
06/30/96
OPERTY -
RT -
IS -
ALL
UNIT
Current
CARLSBERG MANAGEMENT COMPANY
TENANT LISTING
DATE: 03/04/94
TIME: 4:40 PM
PAGE: 11
0 UNIT
TNT
DATE LEASE
CURRENT PMT
ID
ID NAME 1 / NAME 2 / NAME 3
Sts IN / OUT BEG /ENO
RENT FRQ
NOTES
.1 702
1249 Diane Eyler
C 11/01/90 05/01/91
420.33 M
04/30/96
i1 703
1250 Dutcher
C 04/01/90 05/01/91
463.69 M
Byrd
04/30/96
it
704
1251 Sandra Moak
C 08/01/93 06/01/91
523.91 M
05/30/96
51
705
1252 Chris Martini
C 06/01/91 06/01/91
554.96 M
SEC Refunded 6/92 $972.52
05/30/96
51
706
1253 M Signs
C 07/01/79 06/01/91
448.90 M
05/31/96
51
707
1254 Joann Wilson
C 12/01/89 07/01/92
420.33 M
06/30/00
51
708
1255 Fred Smith
C 09/01/89 06/01/91
453.68 M
05/31/96
51
709
1256 Cynthia Bradley
C 07/01/93 03/01/92
543.46 M
02/28/97
51
710
1257 Alice Steenson
C 08/01/91 06/01/91
475.00 M
SEC Refunded 8/19/93 $786.06
05/31/96
51
711
1258 Melinda Joslyn
C 10/01/91 06/01/91
490.43 M
05/31/96
;51
712
1259 Joan Crawford
C 09/01/88 03/01/92
515.81 M
02/28/97
C 09/01/89
546.82 M
SEC Refunded 8/90 $633.84
713
1260 John Desvaux
551
714
1261 H Averill
C 09/01/75
490.16 M
C 07/01/89
502.38 M
SEC Refunded 7/11/90 $607.68
551
715
1262 C Dominques
551
716
1263 Norma Baumsteiger
C 04/01/92 05/01/91
483.34 M
04/30/96
551
717
1264 G Sullivan
C 04/01/76 03/01/92
476.64 M
02/28/97
651
719
1265 J Lacy
C 07/01/85 03/01/92
494.03 M
02/28/97
651
800
1266 R Walker
C 07/01/77 07/01/92
420.33 M
06/30/00
651
801
1267 E Cummesky
C 01/01/77 07/01/92
423.33 M
06/30/00
651
802
1268 Ricky Green
C 02/01/93 05/01/91
551.73 M
04/30/96
651
803
1269 a Albuquerque
C 07/01/78 07/01/92
404.80 M
06/30/00
651
804
1270 Timothy & Val Frakes
C 08/01/93 07/01/92
504.55 M
06/30/00
651
805
1271 C Brown
C 08/01/81 03/01/92
457.64 M
02/28/97
651
807
1272 L Sigwalt
C 06/01/83 03/01/92
460.64 M
R Mansheim
02/28/97
651
809
1273 A Tacy
C 09/01/77
468.15 M
1
811
1274 June Eaton
C 02/03/89 07/01/92
420.33 M
06/30/00
651
812
1275 Agatha Seago
C 09/01/88 07/01/92
451.97 M
06/30/00
PROPERTY
SORT
STATUS
ALL
UNIT
Current
CARLSBERG MANAGEMENT COMPANY
TENANT LISTING
DATE: 03/04/94
TIME: 4:41 PM
PAGE: 12
PRO
UNIT
TNT
DATE
LEASE
CURRENT
PMT
ID
ID
ID
NAME 1 / NAME 2 / NAME 3
Sts
IN / OUT
BEG /END
RENT
FRQ
NOTES
651
813
1276
Anita M Jerichau
C
04/01/87
05/01/91
420.33
M
04/30/96
651
814
1277
G Jobst
C
10/01/77
03/01/92
457.64
M
02/28/97
651
815
1278
R F & Linda Bilohlavek
C
10110177
07/01/92
420.33
M
06/30/00
651
816
1279
Elayne L Matheny
C
02/01/89
07/01/92
420.33
M
SEC Refunded 4/19/90 $264.00
06/30/00
651
817
1280
Wesley Morey
C
12/01/89
05/01/92
420.33
M
04/30/96
651
900
1281
E McPherson
C
09/08/76
06/01/91
430.33
M
05/31/96
651
901
1282
Shirley Wheeler
C
04/01/88
06/01/91
452.91
M
05/31/96
651
902
1283
J Backman
C
01/01/84
06/01/91
420.33
M
05/31/96
651
904
1284
Cynthia Agostinho
C
01/01/93
06/01/91
484.09
M
'SEC REfunded 1/94 $895.08
05/31/96
651
905
1285
Ellen Deitz
C
04/01/81
03/01/92
441.69
M
Dr R Deitz
02/28/97
651
906
1286
E Bulman
C
09/01/77
06/01/91
430.33
M
05/31/96
651
907
1287
Joseph Bettencourt
C
04/01/90
05/01/91
420.33
M
SEC Refunded 4/3/91 $560.22
04/30/96
651
908
1288
J Lyle
C
10/01/83
06/01/91
435.34
M
05/31/96
651
909
1289
Sandra L Burke
C
11/01/92
05/01/92
524.72
M
04/30/97
651
910
1290
Cammile Moore
C
09/01/89
07/01/92
410.49
M
06/30/00
651
911
12.91
A Pease
C
08/01/81
06/01/91
433.33
M
05/31/96
139,315.16
Total Records Included:
299
301>- sewlol�
I
Introduction
Jonnie Perrot, Valley Village
As a member of the 5 -park committee, I would like to reiterate
that the committee is making every effort to contribute to this
process of negotiating a settlement.
However, we feel that a $50.00 /month rent increase is not
equitable. Furthermore, as to what might be more appropriate, we
believe that we have to look at each park separately.
I cannot at this time propose what might be acceptable to Valley
Village. What I can do, however, is to set forth my personal
observations and knowledge of various circumstances in our park
for your information.
As you know, Valley Village is a senior park (I've been
grandfathered in). In any event, I've lived in Valley Village
for 17 years. I shouldn't have to point this out, but I will:
most of the long -time residents of Valley Village are now very
senior; many are widows or widowers on fixed incomes.
II
Factors re Mobilehome Living Expenses
Valley Village is one of the City's oldest parks (possibly 30
years old ?) That means that a lot of the coaches in Valley
Village are old coaches manufactured at a time when the industry
was relatively unregulated. Old means ongoing problems, and the
ongoing need for repair.
Just a few examples:
a. An older mobilehome roof is composed of a series of
overlapping metal panels. The panel seams along with the vents
are "gooped up" with a sealant. The sealant breaks down every
few years, has to be scraped off, and re- applied. Unfortunately,
most people discover this leaky -roof problem only by way of
damaged interior ceilings. The only alternative to continual
maintenance is to install a new and better type roof at a cost of
thousands of dollars. (My new roof installed in 1986 cost
$4,200.00.)
b. Because the manufacturer did not install gutters on the
older coaches -- and most people were not aware of the necessity
of installing gutters immediately -- they learned the hard way
that the sheeting action of water down the sides of the coach
will eventually cause the sheet metal screws to rust out, and
once the rust has started, the siding itself will eventually rot
out.
C. Older mobilehome appliances are generally second -rate,
necessitating continual repair and /or replacement.
d. And you might expect that a mobilehome would cost far
less to heat than a home. Not necessarily... they're only metal
boxes with a few wisps of insulation between the aluminum siding
and the interior paneling (which is comparable to petrified
cardboard).
e. Finally, and due largely to the lack of grading by the
original developers of Valley Village, is the considerable cost
incurred, generally every year, or every other year, for re-
leveling. My coach continually sinks into a low spot on the
southeast corner, which in turn causes the two halves to begin
pulling apart. My annual re -level costs run approximately
$300.00. As to further problems caused by lack of grading about
which nothing can be done, during the winter months my neighbors
and I have standing pools of water in our carports and around the
mailboxes. In the summer, watering of the green belt behind our
cul -de -sac causes a large standing pool of water which ultimately
turns into a mosquito breeding pond.
When I walk around the park these days, I don't see nearly the
number of handymen, roofers, gardeners, etc. as in years past.
This is very telling to me that overall, residents are having to
make some hard choices on how they spend their money.
We have an ongoing vandalism problem in Valley Village. Yard and
carport items of residents who live near the entrance are
routinely stolen during the night. Several years ago when the
fence on Expressway was down for repair, cars in my adjacent
courtyard were broken into and gas siphoned. And, for many years
now the juvenile delinquents who pass by on the way to and from
school have taken great delight in breaking windows (mine
included), particularly along the Copeland Creek side of the
park. Many of the residents along Copeland Creek have given up
replacing broken windows and have simply boarded them up.
Does an unsecured park entrance and a rickety wooden fence around
Valley Village sound like adequate homeowner protection to you?
-2-
III
Park Owner Profits
Now let's move on to what the park owners would have everyone
believe -- that the enactment of Ord. 494 brought about an unjust
restriction of their right to make a fair and reasonable profit.
In fact, the park owners' opportunity to turn a profit under the
ordinance has been substantially enhanced given the absence of
vacancy control in the ordinance and the current definition of
"homeowner" in the State Mobilehome Residency Law, together
creating a situation where prospective homeowners have been
required to sign long -term leases with minimum annual rent
adjustments of 6 %. Furthermore, data from the Rent Appeals Board
indicates that in Valley Village, when a prospective homeowner
takes over a space previously under rent control, the base rent
is raised 60 %.
Even prior to the enactment of Ord. 494, the lease mechanism has
been used to considerable advantage. Beginning in 1985 through
1989, Valley Village owners "persuaded" some of the residents to
sign 10 -year leases at 6 %. It was also required that prospective
homeowners execute or accept assignments of the 10 -year lease.
As I recently learned from writing to the State Dept. of Real
Estate (see attached). the owners of Valley Village did not
obtain the requisite approval for these leases in excess of 5
years forced upon prospective homeowners which approval is
mandated by the Subdivided Lands Act; the leases could have been
voided by the residents had the truth�ecnknown. They cannot be
voided now because the 4 -year Statute of Limitations has run.
There are approx. 62 spaces in Valley Village on 10 -year leases.
Then in 1991 Valley Village owners took advantage of a new State-
wide park owner scheme: Require a lease with a stated term of 5-
years, and put into the body of the lease an automatic renewal
clause extending the term an additional 10 years for a total of
15 years at 6 %. Of the 285 spaces in Valley Village,Come 60 7G n,'�
spaces are under this 15 -year lease. Rents will be over
$1,000.00 /month at the expiration of the lease. Despite the fact
that the State legislature prohibited automatic renewal
clauses effective Jan. 1, 1993, Valley Village continues
to require prospective homeowners to sign 15 -year leases.
Ms
Under these circumstances, one might think that the owners could
well afford to provide the residents with a few amenities.
But I give you the following examples:
Residents were forced to bring a petition for diminished services
before the Rent Appeals Board several years ago relative to the
deteriorated condition of the streets and clubhouse.
Trees throughout the park (whether in the common area or within a
resident's space) were routinely maintained by a tree service on
contract with the park. (And in a park as old as Valley Village,
some of these trees are enormous.) Residents were suddenly
informed by management in 1990 that Valley Village Rule &
Regulation No. 6 (re attractive maintenance of landscaping) was
being re- interpreted to mean that tree maintenance is now our
responsibility.
Periodic cosmetic blacktopping (slurrying ?) always included
carport areas until recently when residents were advised to
privately negotiate this matter with the crew.
Street lights are provided by the park, but according to Rules &
Regulations the residents on whose spaces the lights are located
must pay for the electricity.
At the annual New Years' Eve party last year, a resident fell and
was seriously injured. It was discovered that the emergency 911
clubhouse phone was out of order.
-4-
STATE OF CALIFORNIA — BUSINESS, TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY PETE WILSON, Governor
DEPARTMENT OF REAL ESTATE ,
P.O. Box 187005
Sacramento, CA 95818 -7005
(916) 227 -0813
November 17, 1993
Jonnie Perrot
73 Toyon Court
Rohnert Park, California 94928
Dear Ms. Perrot:
*'1 GUi ICLL Of ivGvG� -iiLJ i , 1992 addressed to th,v Business, T rai6pottation
and Housing Services has been referred to me for reply.
A search of our records show that we have never received an application to
issue a public report for a mobilehome park with conditions for five year tenancy
contracts known as Valley Village Mobile Estates, County of Sonoma.
Insofar as our jurisdiction over these types of offerings, 1 wish to refer you to
Section 11000 of the Business & Professions Code which states in part that the
offering of leases for a term in excess of five years to tenants within a mobilehome
park as a mandatory requirement and prerequisite to tenancy is subject to the
Subdivided Lands Act and requires a public report. A copy of the Statute is
enclosed for your convenierice.
If I can be of further assistance, write or phone me at the above address or
number.
Sincerely,
0z�
ivi i iC,i=f i bThC)H
Managing Deputy Commissioner III
Subdivisions -North
Enclosure
MS:mg
Itr.12mg
lop
Date:
To:
From:
Subject:
July 21, 1994
City Council
Violet Moir, Las Casitas de Sonoma
Proposed Settlement Offer from Park Owners
about Ordinance 494 Suits
I feel it is important for Mr. Flitner to have a settlement offer
available in the event Ordinance 494 is found unconstitutional, but if
a reasonable settlement can not be reached, then the decision needs to
be appealed. If Ordinance 494 is found unconstitutional a settlement
could be a great opportunity to get a new and better ordinance put in
place. Some of the advantages to a settlement would be:
- to get rid of the accumulating "unpaid" rent balances on our
monthly rent statements. This would allow people to sell their
homes without losing most of their equity.
- without the acumulating balances there would be more incentive for
people on lease to go on rent control when their leases expire.
- Park Owners would release all Green Book claims and other on going
law suits against the city and the Mobile Home Owners.
- The other residents of Rohnert Park have only heard negative things
about the mobile home residents because of the suits and potential
damages, by reaching a settlement releasing the city from the
lawsuits it would be a positive impact of the other citizens of
Rohnert Park.
- It would end all the old disagreements about the Green Book and
Ordinance.
0 veA
I realize that some parks have had extreme rent increases in the past
few _years and maybe their Park Owners have already gotten the Green Rook
amounts or more, and some parks have despicable conditions. At Las Casitas
we have the potentially dangerous situation of aging gas lines. After the
1987 emergency gas shut down and emergency repair, there has been no evidence
of planned action for replacing the gas lines. The next emergency might be
fatal to someone.
I have talked to some of the people in rent controlled spaces in Las
Casitas, and most of them are on fixed incomes, and even a small increase
would be difficult for them to manage.
After looking at the settlement suggested by the Park Owners I have
made the following calculations.
$50.00 x 600 spaces = $30,000.00 per month
12 x $30,000.00 = $360,000.00 per year
5 x $360,000.00 = $1,800,000.00 in five years
The Park Owners claim damages in the Sime 1 case of $1,400,000.00.
Every mobile home owner seems to agree that a $50.00 increase is too
much. I propose that in settlement the residents pay $25.00 for 10 years,
if all 600 spaces paid this the owners would get $400,000.00 more than the
damages. However since some parks already have rents that are to high, maybe
the $25.00 per month increase could be extended a little longer in the other
parks in order for the park owners to recoup the damages. If any settlement
is made, the Mobile Home owners must be released from any other damages.
If this is not enough for the park owners, the city could sweeten the deal
by contributing some amount of money,being that they would benifit greatly by
a settlement.
If Ordinance 494 is found unconstitutional, we must have protection
under another ordinance, and I am in favor of one like the County Ordinance.
S vAko
kc) h eje -- T y /®P,
Vice ChA4',Q,
V-2-1/9cf
THE BASIC DISTINCTION BETWEEN "CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT" AND "REPAIRS"
OR "MAINTENANCE" IS THAT THE FORMER NORMALLY INVOLVES A RELATIVELY
PERMANENT INCREASE IN THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY, OR A LENGTHENING
OF IT "S USEFUL LIFE, WHEREAS THE LATTER IS USUALLY A RECURRING
TYPE OF EXPENDATURE TO KEEP THE PROPERTY IN OPERATING CONDITION,
AND WILL NOT CAUSE AN INCREASE IN VALUE OR IN USEFUL LIFE.
!�'i z .
k-ee Ae/y- � /�9
Members of the City Council of Rohnert Park
a
My Name is Michael Trayes and I live in Rancho Feliz.
Last night, Mr. Joe Netter, stated that the purpose of the both
meetings was to get a "consensus of opinion" of the mobile home
owners as to which direction they wanted to proceed in. If truly, Mr.
Netter, you want a consensus to proceed., send each owner a
questionnaire, at the same time you could update who is
impoverished. Then you would not be just getting the opinions of
those who can yell the loudest and /or attend the meetings. You have
done this in the past, and I am sure that our court system would be
tolerant enough to allow a "FRIR" notification and "RERCTION" to the
proposal(s) put before us by extending us the time necessary. Our
country has a voting system..., clearly a special election is not
necessary; but a letter /questionnaire to each owner involved seems a
logical American Way., if in fact you want the true feelings and
opinions of the people involved.
This matter had been brought before the board of rent control and an
arbitrator and the city council agreed that this matter was unfair and
that it would not be allowed. This was done with 'alreadu having the
threat of legal escalation by the landlords lawyers when it had been
originally kicked out. We were not for the increase then - -nor are we
now. Ong negotiations at this time, is as the city attorney says
"putting the cart before the horse "... the horses (mobile home
owners) can't pull a good load. We need the cart and our rent control
board and the city to STAY behinds us and not waver under pressure.
If we enter into a pre - court arbitration (again), we weaken our
position with wavering people, people forced into signing leases and
those who are just plain too frustrated and stressed with this
unfairness to continue the battle. Rnd that is why you all have been
elected to do our bidding for us. Please don't let us down. Thank you
Arthur E. Anderson - Valley Village
IS THE GREEN BOOK AGREEMENT LEGAL ?
As the Green Book Agreement was NOT signed or
approved by any qualified representative from
Valley Village, or any representative from the
other Mobile Home Parks, CAN IT BE LEGAL ?
Our City Attorney John Flitner states, the
Law does recognize that one party can make a
contract for the BENEFIT of another, this is called
third party beneficiary contracts, and was used to
create the Green Book. The total lack of benefits for
the Mobile Home Owners is conclusive. It appears this
is the first illegal act in the Green Book. It appears
now that the Green Book never at any time was a legal
contract.
It was stuffed down our throats without any
consideration for any but the Park Owners.
It is difficult to understand how this agreement
has caused so much grief and worry to so many qualified
Mobile Home Owners. Full of never - ending harassment
and lawsuits. It is devastating and evil.
Maybe a class action suit to recover some of our money?
i
Arthur E. Anderson
?�d1�9�{ C'C' e�leP�'hiy �lao
0l
?,do
rl
a
1, w_
n
AWT
r ,
Fa . ;• ^vim." FY
a
71all9zf C'C° Meet:uy
t.
�24 j �f�l�/'
�F