Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1988-05-25 RRC Minutes . • MINUTES PALM DESERT RENT REVIEW COMMISSION MEETING WEDNESDAY, MAY 25, 1988 4:00 P.M. - CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBER * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * I. CALL TO ORDER Acting Chairman White convened the meeting at 4:10 p.m. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE III. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioner Mike Isbell Commissioner Wanda Tucker Commissioner Joyce Wade-Maltais Commissioner Randall White Also Present: Sheila R. Gilligan, City Clerk/Public Information Officer Mary P. Frazier, Deputy City Clerk Doug Phillips, Deputy City Attorney Rick Erwood, Hearing Officer IV. NEW BUSINESS A. SELECTION OF CHAIRMAN AND VICE CHAIRMAN. Mrs. Gilligan declared that, with the resignation of Sabby Jonathan, the office of Chairman was vacant and asked for nominations. Commissioner Tucker nominated Commissioner White for the office of Chairman. The nomination was seconded by Commissioner Wade-Maltais and carried by unanimous vote. Mrs. Gilligan declared the office of Vice Chairman as vacant and asked for nominations. Commissioner Tucker nominated Commissioner Wade-Maltais for the office of Vice Chairman. Mrs. Gilligan noted that nominations did not require seconds. Commissioner Tucker moved that a unanimous ballot be cast for Commissioner Wade- Maltais for the office of Vice Chairman. Motion was seconded by White and carried by unanimous vote. . ' MINUTES PALM DESERT RENT REVIEW COMMISSION MEETING MAY 25, 1988 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * B. CONSIDERATION OF PETITION FOR HARDSHIP RENT INCREASE FILED BY SILVER SPUR MOBILE MANOR AND SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT RELATING THERETO. KEY RE RICK ERWOOD, HEARING OFFICER MI MIKE ISBELL, RENT REVIEW COMMISSIONER RW RANDALL WHITE, RENT REVIEW COMMISSION CHAIRMAN WT WANDA TUCKER, RENT REVIEW COMMISSIONER JWM JOYCE WADE-MALTAIS, RENT REVIEW COMMISSIONER DP DOUG PHILLIPS, DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY DD DAVID DROWN, RESIDENT VA VIRGINIA ALDRIDGE, RESIDENT PC PAUL COLLINS, RESIDENT JF JACK FRENCH, SILVER SPUR HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION PRESIDENT AR ANTHONY RODRIGUEZ, ATTORNEY FOR PARK OWNER BB BRUCE BEDIG, PARK OWNER RN RON NEHRENZ, RESIDENT CB CAROL BOUSON, RESIDENT MPF MARY P. FRAZIER, SECRETARY TO THE RENT REVIEW COMMISSION SRG SHEILA R. GILLIGAN, CITY CLERK RW . . .I think the first thing we should do is have the recommendation by our hearing officer Rick Erwood. RE Thank you, Mr. Chairman. With respect to my recommendation, this one originally I felt was going to be one of our most straight forward recommendations probably ever made, but since the time of the hearing there has arisen some objections to the agreement. Just to give you a little background, we had scheduled this hearing of two or three different occasions, at which time lawyers from both sides had stipulations to continue the matter in order to work out an agreement. Ultimately, an agreement was worked out and was submitted to me for approval. At that time it was indicated that Joan Baumgarten had represented a majority of the homeowners in the park, in excess of 180 of I believe a park that 215 spaces. At that time that the stipulation was submitted to me I announced that any persons not represented by counsel, not represented by this agreement, if they wished to speak in opposition they could do so. No one availed themselves of that opportunity. However, I should point out that I had received letters of protest which I indicated in my report. Also, that I had at the first hearings that were continued in which no agreement was entered into, there was at least one individual, I believe his name is Mr. Collins, who addressed me with respect to this hardship rent increase. I believe that Mr. Collins was also present during the stipulation being accepted by me, but he also did not come forward. I have had an opportunity to then review what has now been submitted to the City which indicates a group of people protesting the stipulation that I've indicated in my report I think it should be approved. There is some ambiguity with respect to if they're talking about a dollar figure or if they're talking about some wording that should be deleted from the agreement. So, basically, I see we could probably do three different things. 2 MINUTES PALM DESERT RENT REVIEW COMMISSION MEETING MAY 25, 1988 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * One of them I should point out is that I probably didn't make it as clear as I should have in my report that the rent increase that I approved by stipulation between counsel I thought should be applied to all the eligible units in the park. That would include all of the units not covered by a lease agreement. I don't think I made that clear, and there is some ambiguity in the document itself which talks about a procedure whereby an individual can opt out of the agreement. I pointed out in my report that that procedure appears to me to be in conflict with Section 9.50.070 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code and in my approval of the stipulation I deleted that paragraph to remove any conflict between the City's ordinance and this agreement. That I guess would be the first option. The second option would be to refer the matter back for another hearing with respect to what exactly is being protested at this time. Are we talking about a dollar figure, are we talking about some of the wording which talks about whether or not they can still make some sort of claim or whether or not they're giving up some legal rights during the period of the agreement. One of the things that counsel pointed out when she tendered the stipulation to me was that there is a provision in the agreement that even though there is a stipulation that it should not be construed as removing these units from the protection of the rent review ordinance. And that was a specific paragraph in that document because I had some question about that initially. WT Which paragraph, Mr. Erwood? RE I'll have to find my copy of the document. I believe it's on the last page, that would be page 8 of the stipulation, paragraph number 21, where it indicates that "neither this agreement nor any rental agreement executed pursuant to this agreement shall be construed to be exempt from local rent control laws." And then it says "except to the extent the homeowners have agreed to pay rent increases in excess of those otherwise permitted by Ordinance 456 of the City of Palm Desert". MI I have a question of Mr. Erwood. RE Sure. MI Where would this Commission fit in a situation wherein there's an agreement, ”contract", between the park owner and homeowners for rent. Would we be violating any contractual agreement by law in a situation like this? RE As far as I know, we would not in this instance because what we've got here is basically they're saying "we're trying to work within the rent review control ordinance" and the stipulation has to be accepted by your body before it can be effective. So, you're really not violating anybody's ability to contract; those not represented by counsel still have the ability to contract with the park owner in any type of lease agreement with respect to that. And I don't know if the City Attorney wants to. . . DP I absolutely agree with that. I think that any agreement that would be entered into between a park owner and the park tenants has to be approved by this body, the rent review ordinance says so, places that jurisdiction with you, and as I read 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT RENT REVIEW COMMISSION MEETING MAY 25, 1988 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * the ordinance, if you find that agreement to be improper or unconscionable in any way, you could determine not to approve it, to answer that question specifically. RE I guess the last option, I think that's where I was in my presentation, the last option would be that this board could clarify the grounds for the objection and figure out if we're just talking about eliminating some offending wording in the document or not. JWM I didn't hear that, I didn't hear what you said. RE Okay, if offending wording in the document, if you refer to the letters of protest, the cover letter being dated April 24, 1988, and it's addressed to Sheila Gilligan, City Clerk, they talk about on page 2 of the stipulated agreement "for those residents not represented, payment of all monies due April 1, 1988, will be an acknowledgement that this settlement is acceptable to you". Well, then, it goes on. They object to that provision which would indicate that any monies paid by them would be an acceptance of the settlement agreement. In other words, they're saying that "we still would like to reserve our right to protest the reasonableness of this rent increase". So they're not, at least the way I read this now, I'm not sure whether or not they're talking about the dollar amount also or if they're just talking about some general wording that they want corrected. They also refer to paragraph 20, page 7, and perhaps I should indicate what that refers to. Paragraph 20 is basically saying that this is the entire agreement made between the parties, and it indicates that Silver Spur and the homeowners acknowledge and expressly agree that no claims will be made and hereby waive any and all rights that may exist based upon any alleged oral alteration, oral amendment, oral modification, or any oral statements with respect to any change or other matter relating to this agreement. All that that really is is an indication to the Commission that the agreement should be judged by the four corners of the document, that there are not any secret agreements to the side, either side's not going to be able to come back here and claim that well, really, this is not the agreement we had. And that's why, I believe, Doug Phillips, who is the City Attorney, can probably correct me in case I'm wrong, but that's why lawyers put those types of phrases in there so that all the parties understand that it's just the written agreement right there that defines the total rights and liabilities of the parties. In their letter, they indicate they do not want to waive any and all rights relating to the agreement. Well, that's somewhat vague. I don't know if they're talking about waiving any rights that the agreement gives them to have different steps of rent increases, rents that are assured year after year for three to five years, or what exactly that means, to what rights they are referring. With respect to whether or not this body can take testimony, I think that perhaps Mr. Phillips should address that issue as to the boundaries this commission should have with respect to hearing any evidence or any further evidence that maybe I had not heard at the hearing. RW Before we go on to that I just want to ask one question about that paragraph 20. Isn't that superfluous anyway? Pearl(sp) evidence rule would regard this as the document binding to all parties if we were to accept the stipulation. DP Paragraph 20 is a written statement of the Pearl(sp) evidence rule. 4 MINUTES PALM DESERT RENT REVIEW COMMISSION MEETING MAY 25, 1988 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * WT Would you repeat that, Mr. Phillips. DP Paragraph 20 says what the law otherwise generally provides, and that is this written agreement is intended to override any oral understandings between the parties that signed the agreement. WT What about the one part of the sentence that says "no claims will be made"? DP What that means is that to the extent the parties that signed this agreement, and again to the extent that this body approves it, that the parties are bound by its terms. That would mean that the park owner could not charge rent in excess of the amount agreed nor could the tenants expect, who have signed, to pay less than what was called for in the agreement. There could be no claim for any more or any less rent by the parties that sign this agreement. That's what that means. RW Mr. Erwood, do you have any further comments? RE No, I think that basically concludes my report if there are no further questions. RW Do any of the Commissioners have any questions of Mr. Erwood? At this point, I'd like to turn this over to Mr. Phillips for a moment so he can elucidate. DP Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the Commission. As Rick has pointed out to you, there are three options that we see available to you. There may be more, but at this point we see three. The first option would be to accept the hearing officer's recommendation. The second option would be, because of the amount and the nature of the objections to the stipulation, let me say that again. If there are sufficient objections of a sufficient breadth with respect to this settlement agreement such that you feel that in fact the settlement agreement does not reflect what this body of tenants wants, then what you can do would be to remand this matter back to your hearing officer, Mr. Erwood, to take further testimony at a hearing with respect to the proposed hardship rent increase or any other matters that would come before him. The reason for that would be that although it appeared that at one time a majority of the tenants agreed with this, apparently there are some that no longer agree with it, and there are others that never agreed to it in the first place and don't now agree to it. If you find that to be of a sufficient amount that you cannot abide by the stipulation, you do not have to. The process then available to you, I believe, would be to remand the matter back to Mr. Erwood to conduct further proceedings. Those proceedings would be to listen to the park owner or the tenants that agreed with this agreement and to also listen to testimony from others who feel otherwise about it and to then make a finding and recommendation which would then come back before you at some later date. That's option 2. The third option is this. If it turns out as a result of what you hear today that the complaints about the stipulation relate only to ambiguities or wording of the agreement so that, really, the substance is not objected to but rather the wording is objected to, the fine tuning of the agreement is what is needed, that I think this body could do, and I think it would make sense for this body to do that if it would cause this matter to be amicably resolved between the parties. 5 MINUTES PALM DESERT RENT REVIEW COMMISSION MEETING MAY 25, 1988 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * JWM To do what? DP To accept the agreement as you may amend it in order to have an agreement between the parties. You see, there's nothing in our ordinance that prevents an agreement that truly is an agreement, and in order to reach agreement, if what is necessary is some fine tuning of the stipulation and if the owner, who I believe is present and I believe represented by counsel, and if the tenants can agree on wording to resolve this, then there's nothing to stop you folks from saying "fine, we bless this stipulation", and it becomes binding, then, on the parties. But, if you find that, look, we're talking more than just fine tuning here. It looks like there is a fundamental disagreement as to the terms of the stipulation. If that is the case, our recommendation would be to remand the matter back to your hearing officer. Now, why do you remand it back? The reason is that the ordinance is set up for the hearing officer to take evidence. The hearing officer collects that data and that evidence, summarizes it, prepares for you his findings and recommendations in writing, and this body then makes a decision based on that record that was created for you by the hearing officer. In other words, it is not generally for this body to take any additional evidence or testimony with respect to amounts; rather, the evidence taker is before you as your hearing officer. So, does that answer the last point that may have been raised? It is not for us today to have another evidentiary hearing. It is for us today to either determine that yes, we have an agreement or we're close enough to an agreement that we can solve that problem and get there, or we can't and if you can't the recommendation would be to remand it back to your hearing officer. Do you have any questions? WT Yes, I do, Mr. Phillips. You obviously believe that it is legal for us to approve such an agreement. DP The ordinance says so. WT Okay. How about the five year agreement, the term of it? DP There's nothing in our ordinance that prevents, in my opinion, a five year arrangement, if that's what the parties would like to have. The ordinance basically says that "nothing in this ordinance shall operate to restrict the rights of the tenant and management to enter into agreements providing for a fixed rent or a fixed rent for mobilehome tenancies". It didn't say "for one year or less" or "two years or less". It said there's nothing that prevents these folks from agreeing with each other. What has come up, though, is though we originally believe that there was an agreement, a substantial agreement, that may not be true. RW Under the circumstances, do you have a recommendation as to opening this meeting to summary comments from the opposition? DP Yes, that would be, I think, the first order of business, would be to find out the exact nature of the problems with the stipulation so that this body can determine whether those are reparable or whether or not the matter needs to be remanded to our hearing officer. RW Have we at any time in this body set a time limit on comments? Have we? 6 MINUTES PALM DESERT RENT REVIEW COMMISSION MEETING MAY 25, 1988 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * (response unclear) RW Mr. Phillips, would it be appropriate to open the meeting at this time people who are opposed to the stipulation? DP Yes. RW Thank you. If there are persons in the audience who are interested in speaking in opposition to the approval of the stipulation, if you would step forward. We would ask you if you have organized amongst yourselves to have a spokesperson so that that individual may succinctly put the opposition before us. Is there someone who would like to speak? Yes, sir. If you would step forward to the podium, please. DD Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission. RW Sir, if you would, please adjust the microphone upwards. DD Oh, sorry. Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, thanks for letting me speak to you. RW If you would also identify yourself for the record. DD My name is David Drown, and I live at 23 Pampas Lane in Silver Spur Mobilehome Park. This is the first opportunity that I have had to really voice opposition to what has been going on. I won't say just the agreement. The agreement is one issue, but I think the way that this agreement was put together and kind of railroaded through should come to your attention. And I do have kind of a prepared speech if you don't mind. First of all, I'd like to say that I feel that the importance of this rent control ordinance that we have here in the City of Palm Desert is extremely important and can't be overstated. I feel that without it, thousands of mobilehome owners here would be at the mercy of their landlords. Uncontrolled rent increases would force most homeowners to abandon their homes as they could no longer afford the rent, and I know of many people in the park that are very, very close to that right now. The costs of relocation of a mobilehome park, this was brought up by the owners that, well if they don't like the rent let them relocate. Well, this is just actually economically not feasible. It costs more to move one of these homes, if you can find another place to put it, than it is to just abandon it. I also believe that the homeowners of Silver Spur Mobilehome Park have been badly deceived, they have been misled, they have been intimidated, and they have been frightened by our Board of Directors and their attorney into accepting the terms of this proposed five-year agreement. Furthermore, it is very questionable that the Board's approval properly represented the homeowners. The homeowners were never advised in writing that a meeting would be held to provide a vote for acceptance. They were advised that a meeting would be held, but it was not said in that advice that a vote would be taken; in other words, there were a lot of people that probably did not show up at that meeting because they did not realize the importance of a vote because there was no vote stipulated in that letter. The meeting that I'm talking to was January 26, 1988. It just indicated that were going to discuss the proposal, and that discussion ended up to be a three-hour filibuster by the attorney that was hired by our Board of Directors. There was never any attempt to show two sides of 7 MINUTES PALM DESERT RENT REVIEW COMMISSION MEETING MAY 25, 1988 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * anything. There was no attempt to give the opposition to the agreement a chance to prepare a rebuttal to that, and we were not given a chance to really speak. A few of us did try and speak, and we were kind of really knocked down and the filibuster continued. And I really mean this, I mean it was just half an hour dissertation on every little question that came up so that you couldn't get a word in edgewise. So as I said, opposition to the proposal was given no time to prepare for a rebuttal and virtually no time to address the attendees with counter arguments. So then at the end of this, there was a vote taken, and I submit that these people were scared to death to vote against it. I'm going to tell you some of the things that were said in that meeting. I hope I don't run out of time. I believe that the proposed rent increase should not be negotiated by our Board at all, I think it should be negotiated, if there is negotiation to be conducted, by you folks. That's your job, and that's the law. To my knowledge, there has never been any intent on the homeowners to grant the power to our Board of Directors for this purpose. For the Board to assist the Commission, like they have done in the past, is fine. I agree with that. I think we should be represented in these negotiations. But I don't think that we should have that power to do that. I think it violates the very purpose and importance of the City ordinance. I think someone mentioned that there could possibly be a precedent set in doing so and that there was some language that will be put in there to assure that that didn't happen, hopefully. RW Mr. Drown, may I interrupt for just a moment. DD Sure, go ahead. RW Your contention, then, is that the Board of Directors for the park acted outside of their authority in number one, hiring the attorney to represent the tenants? DD Not necessarily hiring the attorney. RW In allowing the attorney to sign an agreement to bind all of the tenants of the park, or at least those who are members of the Homeowners Association. DD Very definitely. This just was done totally undemocratically. And worse than that, it was done by intimidating the homeowners. I'd like to just very quickly read a few of the things that went on. They did not take minutes, incidentally, of that meeting, or the minutes that they took were so brief, it was a three-hour meeting and they summarized their minutes in about half a page, and even then they didn't have names or properly documented minutes at all. But these things that were brought up at that meeting were not mentioned in their minutes at all. It was obvious that their minutes were one-sided, just like the meeting was one- sided. RW Mr. Drown, can you excuse me just one more moment. DD Yes. RW Tell me one other thing. From your standpoint, are you representing other people who are in opposition to the agreement? 8 MINUTES PALM DESERT RENT REVIEW COMMISSION MEETING MAY 25, 1988 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * DD We have had no collective meeting. I represent my feelings. I feel that what they've done is, if not illegal, is certainly not binding on the people, and I think the homeowners. And before it should be binding, I think it should be handled more democratically. If they really want that agreement, they should be made aware of a lot of the loopholes and fallacies of that agreement, together with the fact of how unreasonable the dollar figure is. RW And there are particular areas in the agreement with which you disagree? DD Yes, and you see, we've never had a chance to really address the homeowners of the park and tell them what they're getting themselves into. I can tell you one thing in that agreement right now that is very, very bad. There is no mention in the capital improvement section, I think it's section 11, of the streets and the sewer connections that they're spending something like $400,000 on as I understand it. No mention of that whatsoever. In other words, this thirty dollars plus thirty more dollars, a total of sixty dollars plus CPI that we're supposed to pay for these streets and sewer improvements isn't in that agreement at all. That means that he can pass these expenses through to us at the end of the five-year agreement, and we will have no legal recourse because we've signed that agreement. That's the biggest fallacy of that agreement. The dollars I think if properly examined will also show the falseness of it. But I'd like to just real quickly run down it, it's just one page. They told us that if we didn't accept the proposed settlement that the owner would take the matter to court and that we would have huge court costs and attorney fees and end up paying far more than the proposed amounts of the agreement. They discussed the possible unconstitutionality of rent control and scare us into thinking that we would probably lose on that basis. They talked about the lack of concern on your part, on the Commission's part, and the poor performance in resolving these disputes in past years, which I think is untrue. They did indicate that they did not feel that you folks could do your job. They told us that the $30.00 was fair and reasonable and assured us that the park would be fixed up. They told us that the best efforts language of that agreement and the sole discretion of the owner language in that agreement was nothing to worry about, that that was just normal legal language that had to be in there and that would not alleviate the owner's responsibility. They did not discuss in detail the full extent of the increases over the term. They really addressed only the first year of the $30.00. They did not relate the proposal in terms of total dollars to the owner, they never said that this was going to give him over a half million dollars in additional income exclusive of CPI over the next five or four years because one of the years is gone. They did not mention that the, and I've mentioned this before, the nature of the proposed capital improvements is very, very trivial. They're talking about lighting and security, very small dollar items which aren't really even necessary as compared to the real meaty items of capital improvements which were the street improvements and the sewer hookups. So those were the notes that I took during that meeting, and there was really no real fairness in that meeting whatsoever. And the few people that were there that voted for it I think were just scared to vote. And that's what they're hanging this whole thing on, the few votes that they had and that very one-sided filibustering type of meeting. That's my position. Thank you. RW Thank you, Mr. Drown. Does anyone have any questions? 9 MINUTES PALM DESERT RENT REVIEW COMMISSION MEETING MAY 25, 1988 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Member of the audience speaking - inaudible. RW If you'd like to approach the podium, ma'am, and give your name, please. VA As I've stated, my name is Virginia Aldridge. I am a resident of Silver Spur, 24 Diamond E, and have been for 11 years. As I stated, I will have traveled over a thousand miles at my own expense by about every conceivable means of public conveyance except for camel or covered wagon to get here for this meeting. RW Mrs. Aldridge, I don't mean to cut you off, ma'am, but I just want to let you know, if you would please, keep your comments concerning this to items which have not already been addressed by Mr. Drown. VA I'll make every effort to do that, sir. RW Thank you, and please keep it succinct. VA This was four and a half minutes in content. RW Thank you. Go ahead. VA I will do my best to delete anything that has already been presented. RW Thank you. VA I came for the express purpose of voicing my opposition and to request specifically that the Rent Control Commission continue to act on behalf of the homeowners of Silver Spur who have indicated that they feel as I do. We understood at the very outset the Homeowners Association was formed for the express purpose of exploring the possibility of the purchase of the park, and to that end an attorney was hired. In '85, the nature and function of the Homeowners Association was modified to that of negotiator of a three- to five-year lease agreement. It was at this time that we felt there was no need for an attorney to interceded on our behalf. We all felt that the Rent Control Commission had dealt most fairly and wisely with us in the past, and we wish to express our need to have you continue to act in that capacity. It has come to my attention that there have been many, many people who signed the petition who have. . .a great deal of pressure has been exerted to get them to remove their name from the petition. And also, not to pursue their right to address this assembly. This I feel is undemocratic, and I feel this was something given us by the Rent Control Commission, and we have every right to exercise that. RW Mrs. Aldridge, just let me indicate to you that we have received in our packet a letter in which 11 people who signed the opposition to the settlement have indicated they no longer oppose the settlement. There were originally 102 by my count, my rough count, leaving 91 people who have signed the opposition to the settlement agreement. Go ahead, I'm sorry. VA Alright. Sir, to further clarify that point, there was at the coffee hour this morning, this matter was further discussed, and it was then indicated by Mr. French that there were others who after the meeting had decided they wished their name withdrawn. I can only speak from hearsay on that matter since I was 10 MINUTES PALM DESERT RENT REVIEW COMMISSION MEETING MAY 25, 1988 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * not here. But I would like to say that since much of what I wish to say and came this far to do so has been voiced by Mr. Drown, that there isn't any phase of this agreement, not only the language but the content, that we feel represents the best interests of the homeowners or the senior citizen tenants, whichever you choose to consider them to be. Nothing in this agreement protects their rights and for this reason. I'm speaking now of both the rent increases and of the content, the further content, of the improvements in the park which are left solely to the discretion of the park owner. We just do not agree, I do not agree in any way with this settlement and to wish to petition that you will continue to act in our behalf. I don't feel there's any need for an attorney to intercede. I think that you have done an admirable job. Thank you so much for allowing this opportunity to speak to you. RW Certainly. I would like to ask you one question. VA Surely. RW Do you believe that you represent the feelings of other individuals who are involved in this dispute? VA Mr. Chairman, I was one of the people instrumental in setting up the petition in opposition. I personally, as did others, took it about the park and discussed this matter with many of the homeowners. I hesitate to use that phrase because when it all boils down, we are only tenants. That is really our only status. I spoke personally with these people, I discussed what was in the petition with them. There was no coercion, there was no attempt to change minds. I didn't travel this far to split hairs with individuals, that isn't my purpose in being here. I got the decided feeling, without any doubt, that we spoke for many people in the park, not just myself but many people in the park. Thank you once again. RW Thank you very much. Any questions? (inaudible) RW The rough count that I made just before the meeting was 102 on the original petition in opposition, 11 people who had signed the letter stating that they wished their names removed from that petition, leaving a balance of 91. MI Number of people in the park? WT 215 spaces, is that correct? JWM I just would like to thank Mrs. Aldridge for her statement but also to correct the premise that implied in her statement wishing that the Board would continue to act on behalf of the association. I think the Board would like to fairly and impartially for both the park owner and residents. VA Yes, ma'am. I though that I had amply implied that that is the way we all feel you have acted, fairly and justly. I don't feel that anyone I spoke with wishes to dispute the right of the ownership to receive a fair return on his money. We are all agreed that this is the case. It's just the manner in which this settlement is couched that we are disagreeing vehemently with. 11 MINUTES PALM DESERT RENT REVIEW COMMISSION MEETING MAY 25, 1988 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * WT So, Mrs. Aldridge, you're not objecting to the amount, you're objecting to the terminology and the manner in which it is prepared? VA I think it goes beyond semantics. I do think the amount could be reviewed, and I think it is more than most people realize it will eventually become. And I think it's beyond the means of many of the people I spoke with. We're talking now senior citizens on fixed incomes, and I just feel we're approaching the point where they can't handle this, the financially cannot handle it. And they feel trapped, because neither can they sell or relocate. It is a dilemma, it really is. RW Thank you very much. VA You bet. RW Yes, sir. PC I'm Paul Collins, 16 Prickly Pear, Silver Spur Manor. I am one of the comakers of the letter asking that this petition be brought before this panel. It was never my belief that we needed an attorney or had any reason for one, nor is it now except you probably have to have one to get out of this mess. I didn't opt to get into it. We have been deceived, short changed, and in a number of ways I did not belong to the homeowners association because of the nature in which it was set up, the misrepresentation right from its inception, and I know you're not here to hear that argument. But if that argument becomes necessary, it will be very easy to substantiate in court. I don't want to go to court, I don't like court. But if it's necessary, why, I'll do my part to help substantiate this. Now, the people at this park, many of them, were coerced into accepting this agreement. Some of them were deceived into it by the letter that was sent out. Everybody pays their rent, and by paying their rent, you were opting not to take any exception to this 23 page agreement, which most people didn't see, never did see, haven't seen yet, and probably know nothing about because it was never explained to them. Somebody made a remark that they're not stupid. Well, you don't have to be stupid about something if you don't know anything about it. This was one copy put at the Silver Spur office the same day that the letter came out telling us this thing was accepted by the hearing officer, recommended we accept it. And if we took and accepted and paid the rent, we'd be bound by this and our arguments were over. We had the option of coming in here before 4:30 p.m. on the 6th of May and if we hadn't, we wouldn't be here today. But your position as rent review officers would have been very much in question and we would have doubted if we'd ever have anything to come back to you for. When I came into this town and into Silver Spur Manor, I was told that there was a rent control and that it was working and healthy and operative. I never questioned that. I didn't know there was all kinds of wrangling and carrying on, backbiting and double dealing and back stabbing in this park. I didn't know that the owner had had problems with them or that the people had had problems with him. Whoever's at fault, I don't care. But they were not in agreement. But then they read letters where there's going to be a bright and shining start and all this kind of stuff. So I didn't take any of this too seriously. These people here with that letter, I don't think it's necessary for it to be brought up, it's been brought up before. Then the man's word has been brought into question whether he would do what he says, otherwise I wouldn't be here. Somebody lied. They didn't misstate something, they flat out lied, somebody lied. They said that everything was in order in this 12 MINUTES PALM DESERT RENT REVIEW COMMISSION MEETING MAY 25, 1988 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * park and we had rent control and it'd be alright. Then somebody took it upon themselves to hire an attorney, in fact they started hiring attorneys even before they got into office. Their office was by ballots that I have photostat copies of, so-called official ballots. I could say you could stuff a ballot, you could do anything you want it to. Our self-appointed president went about going about doing business for this park. Like I say, I opted not to be part of it. I also opted not to have the attorney that they hired to represent me. I don't need her, never did need her, and never will need her. Now why did they take it upon themselves to pay this woman $7,500 and then a few hundred dollars more coming to $8,300, the president of the association Jack French over here said. Then he decided to fire her a few days ago. Well, that left us without. . .it didn't leave us anywhere because we had nothing to start with. This whole thing does nothing for us, absolutely nothing for the homeowners. I own the place, I don't know where I can take it to. If I did, I'd take it, I can't afford to take it. Mr. Bedig told me the first time (unclear) a day that if I'd known how bad I was had I'd really be sick. Well now I know how bad I've been had. He remembers that. I've been had real bad because I've got something I'm stuck with. I came here intending to live here. This Joan, I'll refer to the attorney as Joan so I don't get her name mixed up with something, anyway she stood up before the people at a meeting I was invited not to come to and said petitioners, and I thought this was a petition we had to do something with, her clients. She (unclear) , just a few nights back, after we turned in this petition, to talk to people, and she started out with one of these filibusters once again, but when I came in at 7:30, the president said I couldn't come to the meeting. Well, I said I'm here. I won't go into the rest of the details, but when you tell me I can't come to a meeting, I get a little hostile. Now, furthermore, he said, "Well, then you can't talk". So I looked at him and said, "Who told you I couldn't do this?" He said, "Well I was told that you couldn't". I don't know who told him, he didn't ask God I guess because God didn't tell me I couldn't. Now, people are under duress, under stress, there have been people that are sick that have been called and told they get in trouble for signing this petition or coming here. I don't think anybody in the United States of America should be coerced or put under duress to do any kind of agreement, especially one like this. And you say you're objecting to just money? Sure, I'm objecting to money. I want to know what I'm getting for my money, and I won't to know why I'm paying more money than I think I should be paying. And some people say oh, well, they can pay it. There are other people up there who can't pay it. They have everything they've got stuck in that park up there, that's where they've put themselves, whether it's a tent, a box, or whatever we've got, that's all they've got. And they don't know where to go, and I don't think they should have to go to some federal housing because they put their life savings into something, because the man figured he's entitled to a hardship case. And I didn't know what a hardship case was. I still don't know. I thought it was because the guy was hard up; I was about to take up a collection for him. Then I found out hardship meant that he had to double his money or something like that. So that left me nowhere. Now, I'm not going on with this, but if you have any questions what duress is, I'd be glad to take up what remainder of time I have by telling you what duress is. If you have any question about defraud, I'll tell you about defraud, coerce, any of those words, duress. A writer for Times went on for about an hour, I wanted to hear him, and when he got through telling what duress what, what might not bother me may kill the next guy because he may be scared to death. And some of 13 MINUTES PALM DESERT RENT REVIEW COMMISSION MEETING MAY 25, 1988 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * these people have said "I'd better not stay on this petition or I'd better not sign it because I'll get in trouble." Get in trouble with who? A bunch of nothings? No way. I don't know what you're going to do with this, but I'd strongly recommend that you put it back to the hearing officer and that the hearing officer take time to find out all he had was the input and his input apparently wasn't enough. He went on what he heard. Three times I come to a meeting here. The first time I come, the press was here, we hold those meetings. (unclear) some news media I don't know who they were with the camera. People sat here for 45 minutes or so and then the President of the Homeowners Association, so called, he said "Well the meeting has all been taken care of." So we go out and talk to ourselves, don't know what had happened. I come two more times to hearings here, sat with the City Clerk, the hearing officer, and Joan. Is it all right to call her Joan, do you know who she is? That's the attorney. Anyway, we sat here (unclear) having a meeting cancelled, and it wasn't the meeting that was cancelled, it was the lies that went on up in the coffee room and told the people there was no hearing. It was all taken care of by the attorneys. God knows it's been taken care of, we've been had. We've been underhandedly dealt with, and this is not fair, and no hearing, nowhere (unclear) . The next hearing comes up, I come down, nobody's here again. I'm beginning to feel like a stranger in this place, something like an intruder. So I asked the City Clerk, or the lady here, Mary, was there a hearing, had it been cancelled. Oh, no, it hadn't been cancelled. (unclear) because about 20 minutes till ten, he and Joan shows up, there's no hearing. Well, the President (unclear) got it all taken care of. So (unclear) and asked did I represent anybody. No, I didn't represent another group there. The folks that come here today, we decline to meet. We've heard all kinds of lies. RW Mr. Collins, if I may interrupt for just a moment. PC I'm out of time? RW No, I just want to ask you something. PC Go ahead, shoot. RW You're almost out of time, but let me ask you a question. You're telling us, then, that you don't believe that your point of view has been given an opportunity to make a statement. PC I don't believe that the majority of the people there have had an opportunity to have a statement made. Period. And they come in here in April with 180 names supposedly, and they claim and this attorney wants this to go on the record, this attorney said she wouldn't represent the people unless she had 80 or 85 percent, whichever one, you can take either one of the two figures, but one of them's close, unless she had that many people in the place. There is no way that she could have had that many people. Then she wants to try to reaffirm that statement and brings in, I don't know, proxies or whatever else, in April of this year after they've already made all this mess and says "now I've got 180 signatures or 180 people I'm representing". Now, back to the petition again, I'm going to leave it alone. We got the petition because we felt that we were being coerced into an agreement that we didn't agree with, and we were going to have to live with something for the next several years. So I think the amount of money in itself is excessive. I think a five-year so-called contract is excessive to where 14 MINUTES PALM DESERT RENT REVIEW COMMISSION MEETING MAY 25, 1988 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * that they can pin us to something and pin the owner to nothing. This needs a complete readdress, and I want to thank you for your time. If you want some more of my time and want something I can give you, I could give you a whole basketful of input here. Stack of letters yea high. RW Thank you very much, Mr. Collins. PC You're welcome. JWM May I ask Mr. Collins. RW Mr. Collins, before you sit down, we do have one question. JWM Did you mention, sir, that someone was fired a few days ago? Who was that? PC Would you speak up, please? JWM You mentioned, I think, that someone was fired. Was an attorney fired a few days ago? PC Oh, an attorney was fired. Ask the President of the Association. He fired her, I think it was this last Monday. JWM Fired whom? PC Joan Baumgarten, Baumgartner, or whatever it is, it's close. If you want it, I'll look it up. Can't you give her the name. WT We have it. PC They want to know the exact name. WT We have it. PC Anyway, I don't even know why she was hired, let alone fired. I know one thing, she got $8,300 she shouldn't have got. She wasn't worth 83 cents in my book, and any questions about that I'll go about proving it. RW Thank you, sir. Does anyone else wish to speak concerning the opposition to the petition? Yes, sir. PC If the management chooses to speak, I want an opportunity to readdress. RW Now, perhaps we should have a brief statement from the Homeowners Association representative concerning the petition. JF Mr. Chairman and Members of the Board. I'm Jack French. I live at 45 Country Club Drive in Silver Spur Manor. I'm very proud to be there. I was elected President in January of this year, so not everything that I have to say can go back and address some of the things that have been brought up here before. I was unfortunately left with the total responsibility here because the previous president, Harold Faunt, had to go back to Oregon. And so he said "you can 15 MINUTES PALM DESERT RENT REVIEW COMMISSION MEETING MAY 25, 1988 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * handle it anyway, Jack", so I hope he's right. I guess in any kind of a group you always have what I call a few dissidents, a few people that don't agree with the majority. Going to back to November, we had a meeting, and at that meeting it was presented that we should come to an agreement with the owners. At that time, it was proposed that we pay something like $20 or $25 a month plus some of these other things as far as the CPI and so forth. But anyway, there was a vote taken, and it was counted, hands were counted, it was not a name by name type of a thing. But at that time, there were 70 people that voted for the $20 or $25, whatever it happened to be. There were 10 opposed; I was one of the 10. When I saw that the majority of the people in the park wanted to have what we call "peace", I said, "Boy, I guess I'm on the wrong side." So what I decided to do was to see if I could get on the Board of Directors and see if I could kind of help to bring this thing back onstream. They railroaded me into being President. There were nine members there; there were eight for me and one against me. Anyway, that's beside the point. After that time, we did send a letter out, signed by the previous president, announcing the new officers and also announcing and very clearly announcing, in opposition to Mr. Drown said, exactly what the purpose of the meeting was. It was to provide acceptance of the settlement agreement. We were really $5 off in difference at that point. We had been at $25, and we were suggesting that $30 would work out and then we would have what is called "peace". The night the meeting was held, there were letter send out to absolutely every member of the park, not just the homeowners association. We had about 181 members of the association, and there are about 215 spaces. So, Joan, I'll refer to her as Joan, said that represents the 80 or 85 percent, and she said "I'm willing to accept the assignment with that kind of a thing". So, as far as I know, there was no particular mention that we were going to buy the park; this was not brought up. It's something we would like to do. When Mr. Bruce Bedig decides that he wants to sell, I think we have first option on being able to buy it, and I hope ultimately that may be able to happen. However, at the meeting on January 26th, and as Paul has so liberally said, it was about a three-hour session in which, admittedly, Joan (well Joan was not at that meeting, I'm sorry) . It was pretty well discussed, and when it finally came, there was a vote taken, 54 agreeing to the $25 and 7 were opposed to it. Now it's true that the minutes were very, very short. I've got to explain the reason that they were. Our secretary, unfortunately, suffers from Lou Gehrig's Disease, and if you want the technical term for it, it's called amiotropiclateralsclerosis, I just learned that the other day. Anyway, she's not able to get around, and perhaps the minutes were not as complete as they really should have been, but at least they got across the sum and substance of the meeting. Some of the people that objected and signed this recent petition stated that they had not been informed of the meeting, and that is absolutely untrue. Mr. Drown, who spoke first, said that there was no special invitation. He was in the minutes as making a comment, and Ron Nehrenz answered his questions, so we know that he was there. Now, admittedly, out of 215 residents, 54 for and 7 against is not all that many; however, I held in my hand 17 proxies to vote. I didn't vote them because, after all, 54 to 7 was enough of a plurality that it didn't really honestly matter. What I think is the problem is that when this petition was taken around to people, there was considerable amount of misrepresentation made to these people that they were having to agree to something that really was not perhaps legal, perhaps it was not fair, and certainly I would be the first to admit that there are some in the park that are going to have some hardship in paying this amount of increase. 16 MINUTES PALM DESERT RENT REVIEW COMMISSION MEETING MAY 25, 1988 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * However, I think that it's a rather odd circumstance for the Homeowners Association to be on the side of the owners, but here we are, shoulder to shoulder. That particular night there were people that objected to the agreement primarily because there was nothing in the agreement as to exactly what he was going to do about various things. He had arranged to have a meeting with us, and we did meet, and we met last Tuesday. And prior to that meeting I invited David Drown, myself, to the meeting. I said "we're having an opportunity to meet with our owner and I'd like you to be there and express yourself". I also called Paul Collins the day of the meeting and I said "Mr. Bruce Bedig had asked him personally through us to come to the meeting". He refused. So he didn't wish to meet with the owner and with the homeowners association and myself to find out just exactly how Mr. Bedig was going to address the problems. Now if we railroaded this thing through, boy I have been on some good railroads, and I sure missed the caboose, because I don't think there was any intent on anyone's part to railroad this through. What was pointed out in that letter, and I will give you a copy if you'd like, was that there was always the possibility that if we did not come to an agreement, we could go to court, we could do a lot of this and that, and we would be paying something like $4,000 to $6,000 over what we had already paid. I'd like to correct Mr. Collins in one respect. Our attorney cost us about $10,000, not $8,300, and the reason that I want to point that out, the reason she's not here is, we frankly ran out of money in our treasury. And since I didn't feel we had any real reason to have her here, I called her and asked her not to attend this meeting that Mr. Bedig had tried to set up with us, which we ultimately went to. And she said "Well, why don't you want me there?", and I said "Well, I understand from you that Mr. Bedig is not having his attorney at the meeting," and I said "if he doesn't feel his attorney is necessary, I don't feel our attorney is necessary". And she said "Does that mean you're firing me?", and I said "Those are your words, not mine. We can't afford you. I want to save the money for this hearing." But unfortunately, this meeting that we had spend all of our available funds; therefore, it was necessary to do something. I did not feel that I wanted to go back to the homeowners and ask for another assessment, not when we'd already spent $10,000, and I feel we've got a good, viable agreement. I think that Rick Erwood looked it over and felt pretty certain that everything was, as is popularly known in Chicago as "copacetic", and I think it's a good agreement. And the meeting that we had with Mr. Bedig that unfortunately neither Dave nor Paul attended was the most congenial type of meeting that I've ever been in. We had seven members there from the Board, and it was just real pleasant. Mr. Bedig is sincere in wishing that we have the best park in the desert, and he wants to make it that way, and we want to stand there right with him and do it, too. Thank you so much for your time. RW Mr. French, before you leave the podium, I'd like to ask you a question. JF Sure. RW Do you think there is a solution to this problem which would accommodate the wishes of the 91 people who have signed and not retracted their names from the petition in opposition? JF Well, you might have a later bunch of people than I have, but there were only 71 on the amount that I had, and I didn't make a special attempt to try to coerce anyone into signing or to remove their name. There were people here who were 17 MINUTES PALM DESERT RENT REVIEW COMMISSION MEETING MAY 25, 1988 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * at coffee hour this morning, and the only thing I asked them this morning was, I have a list, and I'm not going to use the word petition, I have a list here that says if you want to remove your name from that original petition, find, but I'm not asking anyone to do it. If you do it, you do it of your own free will. But I don't think they have any real grounds from what I've heard tonight. They've got a lot of words, but they don't have any real grounds. I believe it was fairly done. According to our by-laws, in order to have a quorum of homeowners, we only need 10% of the homeowners there, and any vote that's taken with that number there becomes binding on everyone. RW Let me ask you one other thing, sir, if I may. Are there people who are still desirous of removing their names from the petition in opposition? JF There are a large number of names that would like, people that would like to remove their names. But as you know, this is the time when summer comes along and a lot of people have gone to their other homes or gone to visit or something like that. I know of probably four or maybe five more. There may be more than that. I didn't try to go out and solicit anyone, I didn't try to force anyone to remove their name. They came to me and said "We, Jack, didn't really honestly understand what we were signing". One gal said "I was down on my hands and knees in the dirt, and they came along and pushed this thing in front of my and insisted that I sign it". So. . . (unclear--noise from audience) Thanks a lot, Paul. I wouldn't give you the same credit. Thank you. RW May I just have a moment. Commissioners, do we have any questions of Mr. French? WT Mr. French, if were to remand this to the hearing officer, would you be represented by an attorney at that stage? JF We would not. I don't feel an attorney can help us at this point. I don't feel that it's really honestly necessary. After all, the legalese is all over with, and I think it's just a case of let's find out what their real objections are, and I don't know what objections they've really got. What I've heard here just doesn't mean there is an objection. WT That returns to the Chairman's questions to you a few minutes ago, and I don't think you were responsive to it. As I understand it, he asked you if you thought there was a chance of overcoming some of those objections. JF Maybe I'm misunderstanding you. I thought he asked me if there were other people that wanted to have their names removed from the petition. Wasn't that your question? WT Did I misunderstand the question? RW In addition to that, sir, we would also like to know if there is a method by which the objections of however many people are objecting may be overcome. 18 MINUTES PALM DESERT RENT REVIEW COMMISSION MEETING MAY 25, 1988 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * JF Well, the people that I talked to had various objections, like they didn't feel they were getting the progress on the roads that they really felt, they felt that the lighting was really, really bad, and they felt that the security of the park left a lot to be desired. And of course that was part of the reason why we met with Bruce Bedig, to find out exactly what his intentions were as per the settlement agreement. In this, he freely and willingly offered to do what he thought, and maybe it's sole discretion, but it was with our help also, what would be making this the best kind of a park, one that would be safe, one that would be good. RW If we were to return this to the hearing officer, would the tenants in the park, those who are in opposition to the agreement and those who are in favor of the agreement, be willing to come forward and state either their grievances or their support for the petition? JF I can't commit other people. RW What's your feeling? JF My feeling is this, that most people, if they had a petition shoved under their nose, would sign it without even knowing what they hell they signed, excuse the word. People tend to be a little bit toward the sheep type, and some people just say, well let's get rid of them and the easiest thing to do is to sign it and get it out of the way. I don't think that anyone realized that it was going to cause the amount of difficulty that it did. It actually cost the homeowners over $1,000 for attorney's fees for all the phone calls and meetings and everything like that, which made it impossible to have her here today. RW Thank you, sir. JWM Of course within a democracy, it's important for all points of view to be heard. JF I'm absolutely in favor of that. RW Do we have any other questions for Mr. French? MI I just don't think you can get all points of view with a 10% quorum. (unclear) JF Well, there were 54 plus 17 proxies plus 7 opposed, so that's a lot more than 10% of the 215. RW Thank you very much. Yes, sir. ?? (unclear) and I think you should judge for yourself whether this document that called that meeting is going to cost the homeowners over a half a million dollars emphasizes that point and (unclear) to a vote. RW Alright, if you would please, give that to the City Clerk. ?? (unclear) RW Thank you, sir. 19 MINUTES PALM DESERT RENT REVIEW COMMISSION MEETING MAY 25, 1988 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * AR My name's Anthony Rodriguez (unclear) RW Actually, at this point, we were not intending to receive evidence, I don't believe. We'll give you an opportunity. BB May we speak in any event, Mr. Chairman? RW I'm sorry? BB May we speak in any event? RW Yes, sir. BB My name is Bruce Bedig, I'm one of the owners of Silver Spur. I think there is certainly a democracy going on because we do have things that appear to be at cross currents in terms of information and people's opinions and who said what and how it was represented. But there are a couple of things that you've heard that struck me very, very, as very fresh in a rent control process. And number one, we talked about concerns that the residents had within their own group, not with the landlord or owner, not representing themselves properly. We had residents who represent the elected majority, which is the democratic process, stand up and say we are standing shoulder to shoulder with this owner. I don't think you have heard that before in Palm Desert. More importantly, it's important that you recognize that this is the first such important agreement that has been forged out of a process that heretofore has been completely off the limits of normal cordial behavior in a business or social setting. In other words, stumbling though it may have gone, it worked successfully, and it needs to be endorsed. It needs to be endorsed not only because 95% of the residents have performed financially as to the agreement, 95% have performed as to their financial obligations under this agreement, but because it is that first step. Silver Spur is the first mobilehome park to have hooked up the sewer system with the Water District. Silver Spur is the first park to have repaved the roads. Silver Spur is the first park to have been in agreement with its residents. That is because Silver Spur's ownership believes that the peace process, not the dollar process, is more productive and why we solicited and obtained acceptance within the resident community for this agreement. It was not an agreement that was negotiated easily. It was a difficult agreement. This agreement has taken place after almost, in fact, 11 years of ownership under my direction and in addition to the purchase price of the park over $800,000 having been spent to upgrade and improve this property. Now, it's fundamentally important that one financial fact be made clear to you, that you have been given $30 here and $30 there, and let's make sure we understand that the stipulation that everybody has paid since October is part of the increase; it is not in addition to. In other words, the agreement is an all- encompassing agreement which includes the amounts of money that have been paid by the residents since October 1st of 1987 on account of the money spent for the asphalt and sewer connection. It is not in addition to. Now, I think it's important because it runs to the nature of the party's performance of the agreement that you review a tenant/homeowner, whatever you would call, resident, name by name listing of their performance. And what you will find is that in April, approximately 96.8% of the 215 spaces were accepting of this agreement on the 20 MINUTES PALM DESERT RENT REVIEW COMMISSION MEETING MAY 25, 1988 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * basis of their payments. In May, on the basis of their payments, 94% were accepting of the terms and conditions of the this agreement based upon their payment. Now, if in fact, they had not known about it in March, they knew about it as of April 1st. If in fact, they didn't know about it as of April 30th, when 94% percent of them stepped forward on May 1st to make payment, they knew about it as of then. The point of the matter is that we are never going to obtain 100%, and that, as you have pointed out, is the democratic process and is the way it should be. And we're all very proud of the fact that we have reached consensus and in doing so promoted a peace process, rather than continued adversarial relationships, which is not productive of their life force or their time and certainly not of yours or mine. Now we have something here that's kind of special. And I'm speak for myself and am attempting to share this with you because I have not talked about this with them, but it's a personal thing on my part. Eleven years and $800,000 does not mean that I'm not going to be here tomorrow. I'll be here ten years from now, and I'd like to do so in a peaceful process, but recognizing full well that they have the right to voice their dissent, but to ensure participation, yes, we ask that they join us in meetings to discuss and learn of their grievances. They would not share them. We are never going to get 100%, we are never going to get 96%. I mean, how many people have gotten 100% on a blue book essay exam? It's impossible. It's impossible to do the same thing here. You can't do it. And I'm glad that we can't do it because I'm glad that we have differences. And that's what we're seeing here, the process of difference, but what you do see and what we ask you to endorse, residents and ownership alike, is consensus of the clear majority. Now, while you are not able to take evidence, I think it's proper for your consideration to have the April and May analysis, name by name, indicating that in the main, the majority have taken it upon themselves to pay the retroactive amount going all the way back to October in full. Some of them have opted to pay the $5.00; some of them have fallen in between. With some exceptions, only seven people were consistently against the agreement in terms of their rent payments and information submitted to the park and the resident leadership in April and May. Seven people. Now how do you interpret that? We interpret that as consensus. And remember, this is not the ownership trying to stretch a calculation. It's right here. I think this is not evidence, this is a representation of both parties' intent, and I would ask that you accept this for your review to evaluate the relevance of what you've heard here today. And I would like to then, whether you accept it into evidence or not, I am going to take the liberty of passing it on to Sheila and ask that she hopefully pass it out if the City Attorney will allow it. RW Mr. Bedig, I have one question. You have said that there are seven people who are in opposition to the agreement, and by that you are saying that there are only seven people who have not paid what they were obliged to pay under the agreement. Is that correct? BB That is partially correct. I mean that there are seven people who in both April and May paid the "old rent" plus the $20 stipulation. There's no question as to this $20 stipulation. And by the way, parenthetically, while the $20 was based upon a $400,000 expenditure, to date we have incurred $440,000, and we're going to be over budget. But our deal, our agreement, is that the ownership get the project completed. I simply want you to understand that there's a lot going on in 21 MINUTES PALM DESERT RENT REVIEW COMMISSION MEETING MAY 25, 1988 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * terms of having to bring a property such as Silver Spur up to what it should be, and it's taken a lot of time and a lot of hours. But the seven people I would like to also submit to you, and this is ownership's point of view, I have indicated on this schedule for both April and May which of the tenants were previously designated as having been a member of the Joan Baumgarten client list that was represented to us by the attorney and by the resident leadership as having been part of this deal. And of the seven people, only two of them were never a part of the Joan Baumgarten list. That is to say, Mr. Collins and Mr. Robert Peterson. But Mr. Drown, Mr. Gordon, Mr. K as we call him, Hugh Swain, and Mr. Pollace, which you can see by analyzing this sheet that I've given you, have previously been represented to us as having been part of the Joan Baumgarten client list and a part of the resident leadership, because as you know it is impossible for us to negotiate with 215 individual homes. We have an agreement, and I believe your ordinance endorses it in that I believe it should be supportive of the peace process and in fact go further than that, endorse it. Ask the other parks to do the same thing, bring peace back into the mobilehome parks rather than continued advocacy because the money that is being spent on lawyers' fees ought to be going into the ground and improving the sewers and improving the streets, and it doesn't happen that way. If we don't allow peace to come, we'll never get the work done on the physical plant that we should because you can only pay dollars once. You either pay them for the lawyer or you pay them into the ground. They belong in the ground with respect to Silver Spur and some of the other parks and, frankly, I join the resident homeowners association in saying I don't want to pay any more lawyers' fees either. I'd rather put it in the ground because in addition to the $440,000 that we've spent, we have additional commitments that Mr. French was kind enough to talk about that will cost more money. Well, that's fine, I'm going to be there for another 10 or 20 years, and I like to do things right the first time. Spending money on lawyers is not doing it right the first time. All due respect to my counsel, who I respect, and to Joan Baumgarten, who is a worthy opponent who is not here to speak in her own stead. That is not to say that I believe that she was easy, quite the contrary. And I don't have to say that because as I understand it she's a relatively frequent visitor to you. So, what we have here is the democratic process, thank goodness. What we do have is dissent, and what we have is the fact that we're not going to, can't fix it if it's no longer broken, and it's not broken. It's fair. Your hearing officer found that it's fair. Again 95+% of the residents in both months are in agreement based on their performance, the sewer and asphalt is done, and we're moving forward with additional improvements. We've entered into that agreement. We've set a precedent for other agreements within the park, other parks within this area, I think that's important. And it's in the best interests of government to applaud, endorse, support, and move along agreements between people, particularly ones where they're properly and adequately represented on both sides. I'd like to ask Tony Rodriguez to address a few things for the record, just so that we're clear. Thank you very much. RW Thank you. BB Before I leave, are there any questions? WT Yes, I have one, Mr. Bedig. You mentioned, did I hear you say that the roadwork and sewers were done? 22 MINUTES PALM DESERT RENT REVIEW COMMISSION MEETING MAY 25, 1988 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * BB Well, they were done but not to my satisfaction or to the satisfaction of our residents. We have a substantial retention over and above the normal 10% which I will not allow to be released until I'm personally satisfied with the work. We've had an outside engineering firm come in to assess what we believe to be the deficiencies. The contractor has been kept notified. His retention is being held giving him an adequate time to perform. We anticipate meeting with the resident leadership and with as many others of them as would care to attend later on in June to set some specific schedules and then in October in order to look at where we are in three months after we see what the heat has done to the asphalt and what curative measures have to be done at that time. What I mean to say is that in my opinion 80% of the work is done. There is still a lot of perfectionist touching up that the park personnel are addressing. Another thing that's interesting, you haven't heard here to date that any of the residents have said that Silver Spur has not repaired the damage it's done. We are not yet finished because some of the resident repair work that our people must do, that is to say park personnel must do, is not yet finished, but they trust in us, they see our performance, and they've seen it for 11 years. Now, we're going to have disagreements. But the point of the matter is that we are the first park to have done what we've done, and it will turn out to be well. You will also hear some eight years ago if you get into this in detail how much time it took to do a proper job with the pool renovations. They were absolutely correct. I think we were like three months beyond the time we had programmed to do these things. And you know in construction you have to push, you have to look, you have to document, you take pictures, and then you make them go back and do it again until it's right, and again and again and again. It takes time to do the proper job. That's where we are on the asphalt, at best 80% done. And luckily we've got a bunch of perfectionists in the park, and I'm not a very good one but I try. I'm not satisfied yet, but when we're satisfied then we'll work it out. But it's going to be a top quality job because it's got to last for a long time. But in the interim and every three to five years, yes, we'll have to do the normal care and maintenance and preserving of the asphalt. It's a big expense. I'm glad we got in at '88 prices rather than '89 or '90 prices. RW Any other questions, Commissioners? Thank you, sir. BB Thank you. Mr. Rodriguez. (unclear comments from the audience) RW Just a moment, sir. Let us have the attorney speak first. AR Hi, I'm Tony Rodriguez, and I'm the attorney for the owners of the park. The main point I would like to make is that I think that you really do (unclear) personally I believe that we should allow the tenants to decide between themselves and come to a consensus and then the owners of the park should deal with that consensus, and that's what I think we did. So I think that the agreement should be approved as to everybody, there really isn't any other practical way for us to go about negotiating an agreement if we have to deal with all 215 people individually. But if you don't approve the agreement as to everybody in the park, I think that the fourth alternative is that you should still approve the agreement as to the 180 or so people who actually did sign the list that was submitted by Joan Baumgarten at the hearing. I think that we have a binding contract, and I think that your ordinance is clearly broad enough to allow the 23 MINUTES PALM DESERT RENT REVIEW COMMISSION MEETING MAY 25, 1988 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * homeowners and the owners of the park to enter into an agreement. And I'm not really sure, and this is the City Attorney's call, I'm not really sure that the agreement even needs to be approved by the Board. But as I said at this point that's the City Attorney's call. But as I read the ordinance, I don't even see that. I see that there is a binding agreement, at least between 180 or so people and the owners of the park. And the opt out provision that was included in the agreement was for the other 35 or 40 people who didn't sign the agreement and who weren't represented at the hearing and the whole purpose of the opt out agreement was to make sure that those people did have an opportunity to voice their opinions because we didn't want to bind people that weren't part of the homeowners organization. And one other point that I'd like to make, just in passing, is that the 90 or so people that you alluded to that signed the petition in opposition to the agreement, you're probably aware of this but I haven't heard it exactly come out, it seems to me that those 90 people for all we know could represent 40 or 50 spaces or maybe 60 spaces, I don't know, but there may be that couples have signed up two people per one space. And, like I said, I could be wrong about that, but I don't know, but I think it's something that should be looked at in determining how many people really still are in favor of the agreement. And since I did spend a lot of time working on this agreement, negotiating it, and drafting it, if you have any questions for me about the agreement I'd be more than happy to answer them. RW I think my concern at this point is that I don't know whether those 102 or 91 people or however many people there are were: a) represented at the meeting and truly knew about the agreement and what it represented and b) have given their consent or assent to the agreement as it stood. I don't know that at this point. There is a conflict in the evidence before us. I think we need to resolve that conflict. AR It was my understanding that there were 180 or so signatures of people that were attached to the original agreement. And I can see where maybe people want to change their minds now, but I don't see how legally they can be allowed to do that. RW I don't believe in buyer's remorse either. That's not what I'm suggesting. What I'm suggesting is, and I don't think that there were 180 signatures. I had, I believe, 180 typewritten names which were presented, and the statement was made by the attorney, Joan Baumgarten, that these were the people she represented. Now that bald statement I don't believe is sufficient to bind those people to a contract. And that's where we stand at this point. AR Alright, we stand at an impasse, and I'm sure you can appreciate the position that it leaves the owners in, because again, we don't know who it is that we're supposed to negotiate with, and I really don't know how you're going to resolve this process unless you have all 215 spaces come in and say, one by one, whether or not they approve the agreement. RW I understand the quandary. Commissioners, any other questions or comments? JWM I think an important point, though, to not have representative signatures from Ms. Baumgarten who was supposed to represent them. 24 MINUTES PALM DESERT RENT REVIEW COMMISSION MEETING MAY 25, 1988 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * RW I suppose it's a question of agency, if you will, it's a question of who represents whom, are these people truly represented or not. DP Could I make a point here, too? RW Certainly. DP As I heard the owner indicate, it appears, based on the documents that now may be before you and being passed out, that a vast majority of the tenants are paying as if they were in agreement. They have paid apparently the $20, and they have been paying that for several months now. They are also paying, I believe, the additional $10, and they've also paid either $5 or $60 of the arrearage, the retroactive. So if that payment constitutes an intention on the part of those. . . ?? 215 DP No, it would be 206, because 9 did not approve. If that indicates an intention on the part of 206, well, it seems to me that that would be something that could be verified so that for once and for all this is understood and known. The problem that I see as being, and if I could restate what the Chairman just said, is that I still don't know, we don't know, how many people exactly are in agreement with this stipulation and how many are not, and I might add from what Mr. Erwood has reported certainly at the evidentiary hearing, which was by the way very carefully noticed, only once but I think for every continuance there was a notice that went out, and the City Clerk has shown me these notices, that very few if anybody stood up in opposition to the agreement, at least at the evidentiary hearing. That's the reason why, if we in fact have an agreement that is agreed to by over 90% of the tenants in the park, I think this Commission should know that. On the other hand, if we have an agreement that is only agreed to by, according to the numbers that I have, about well, it appears to me to be 57% in favor, 43% opposed, if we have 91 people in opposition and the remainder for, and that's the swing so far that I've heard, that's a big difference. And the question is how do we find that out and my recommendation to you would be the remand back or if you want to schedule another hearing before this body and put the onus back on the owner and the tenants to please give you a final written list of who agrees with this agreement and, doggone it, who doesn't. I'm sorry, that's not a legal opinion. AR Could I just say one thing about that, and I'm sure you all realize that at this time of the year, as it's been said before, there are very many of the homeowners who just aren't in the vicinity any more and can't be reached. And I don't know how long of a process that would be to get all these people together, to send them things in the mail, to deal with them face to face. I don't know if there's any real practical way of doing that, although of course we'll try and do whatever it is that you order. There's one other point that I'd really like to stress also, and that's about the $30 rent increase that went into effect last October, I believe it was, or the $20 increase that went into effect last October. I just hope that you all understand and it's perfectly clear that that $20 was verified, dollar for dollar, in the stipulation that was apparently entered with the Commission at one point, justifying a $400,000 expenditure for the sewer and the asphalt repair. And that the agreement specifically states that no other capital improvements will be made except for government required expenditures and certain non-insured 25 MINUTES PALM DESERT RENT REVIEW COMMISSION MEETING MAY 25, 1988 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * expenditures because there was an issue earlier today that the owner might somehow come back five years from now and pass through the cost of the sewer and the asphalt again, and it's been specifically stated in the stipulation that's before you that the sewer and asphalt has already been paid for by the $20 stipulation. DP Mr. Chairman and members of the Commission. In fact, in your packet one of the documents is a stipulation dated September 3, 1987. That is the stipulation to which counsel now refers and it reflects the $20 increase for capital improvements. WT Who stipulated to it? The attorney? DP As I understand it, it was once again signed by the lawyers for both sides or perhaps it was signed by the lawyers for both sides and the owner. AR There should be a signature page. DP There is, and the signature page reflects signatures by yourself, Mr. Rodriguez, and Joan Baumgarten, attorney for the residents of the Silver Spur Mobile Manor. AR And I believe there is a warranty at the end of that or a representation that she, in fact, represents the homeowners association at that point. DP The last paragraph of the stipulation states "each of the attorneys by executing this stipulation warrants and represents that they have the authority to execute the stipulation on behalf of their respective clients and to bind their clients to the terms and conditions of the stipulation." And it is signed by Joan Baumgarten, attorney for residents of Silver Spur Mobile Manor. AR And I believe, and I could be wrong, somebody can correct me on this if I am, but I believe that after the stipulation was signed, that all 215 spaces began paying that $20 pursuant to the stipulation and have continued to pay that $20 each and every month since that date. WT That stipulation never came before us, am I correct? RE No, the reason it didn't is because it was kind of, the whole hearing was packaged together, and this was just, at least my understanding was this stipulation was preliminary to the stipulation that they later agreed on that they were later able to work out. And the final stipulation that we're here on approving relates back to this $20, and I would further note that, if my memory serves me correctly, that we didn't have opposition when that $20, or if we did have opposition, it was only one or two people because I don't remember long public testimony from anyone objecting to that $20. But that was kind of an interim measure so that it would not hold up the improvements that were being made and could maybe facilitate the agreement process. DP I've got some more information on that that might help, if I could, and this again relates to the stipulation dated or that was brought to us by the attorney on September 3. According to our City Clerk, a Notice of Stipulation and Evidentiary Hearing for Silver Spur Mobile Manor went out calling for a hearing on Friday, October 16, 1987. And this notice is dated September 10, 1987. It states at the 26 MINUTES PALM DESERT RENT REVIEW COMMISSION MEETING MAY 25, 1988 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * bottom "both parties further stipulated that the $20 per month increase may be adjusted, etc. etc." So this is clearly relating to the $20 stipulated increase. Apparently there was no opposition received. When no opposition is received, that means that there is no hearing that takes place, it's understood at that point that. . .that's fine, that's the way our ordinance reads. JWM And this went to the residents? DP Yes, yes it did. So I think that the point with respect to the $20 for the capital improvements that is being made is correct, that the $20 apparently went into effect last fall. The stipulation which you now have before you that talks about a $30 rent increase, $20 of that is provided for in that prior stipulation. The $10 is not, and that's what apparently has occurred. AR So is it my understanding that the $20 of the $30 is no longer an issue or is not an issue because nobody filed an opposition to that $20? DP That's the way we understand it. RW May I make a suggestion? If no one has a strenuous objection, can we take five minutes to recess and come back and decide what to do? NOTE: The recess was called at 5:55 p.m. , and the meeting was reconvened at 6:00 p.m. RW Okay, I think we should perhaps resume. Mr. Drown, you made a request to have a brief rebuttal to the statements made. If you would, sir, please restrict your comments to about two minutes. Thank you. DD I would like the Commission, if they could, to put themselves into the position of a homeowner in this park. And you receive a letter from the owners' management association, I can't even pronounce it, I'm sorry, I'm not familiar with the firm, and I don't know if you've received this or you have a copy of this letter or not, but you can have mine if you want. And it says "those residents who are represented by the Homeowners Association in this settlement agreement are to pay all adjustments as noted in the following schedule". And then when the rents were collected. . . RW We do have that letter, sir. DD Okay, and these amounts were attached to the bills for that month, and the average citizen, average homeowner there, took that as the law and paid these. And this is what they're hanging their hat on. They're saying that because these people paid these amounts, that they must have agreed with this settlement. I really don't think that's fair. As an example, I know my wife did not agree with that settlement, and she went down and made that payment because she thought she had to, and it wasn't until I told her "Hey, you don't have to make that payment" that she settled it out with our manager, the manager of the park, and wrote a new check. But I just don't think it's fair for them to make a representation of the whole park based on the fact that the people are paying that increase. I further, I'm really shocked at Mr. Bedig's opinion of democracy. If this is democracy, democracy's in real trouble. I mean, I mean that seriously. The people of that park were not represented fairly in any way, shape, or form. 27 MINUTES PALM DESERT RENT REVIEW COMMISSION MEETING MAY 25, 1988 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * As I said before, you saw some intimidation here just a few moments ago. There was an attempt at intimidating you, and you saw the deception. I'm sure you saw the deception, I saw it. That's all that we see, deception and put the fear in us. If we don't approve it, we're going to be in big trouble. And the people in that park, most of them are old people, a lot of widows, they don't know what to do, they're very confused. And they'll listen to anybody that talks to them. And I've talked to a lot of them. I personally, if it was just me, I would probably pay the $30 and go on, but I feel that someone, a few of us in that park, have to represent the majority of those people because our homeowners association is not doing that. Quite honestly, they are not. I made some notes here. I don't know if I can even interpret them, to his speech. But, this is definitely not a case of buyer's remorse, it is not a case of buyer's remorse. Oh, that's what I wanted to talk about. When we originally agreed to hire an attorney, there was very little said about what that attorney would do. We were just asked to contribute $25 so that we could have an attorney to help us to represent ourselves to you in an attempt to fight this enormous rent increase proposal that was made. And most of us were pretty frightened of that proposal; it was staggering if I remember, at over $60 for the first year, an obvious of negotiation tactic, if you will. But people were frightened by it. $60, we need an attorney, so we hired one. But what happened? Did we really get representation here in the Commission? No, none at all. It really seemed to most of us, I'll be quite honest, as though she was representing Mr. Bedig and not us. And if you want a raise of hands from the people here, I would suggest you get an opinion on that. But I had one gentleman come up to me, he's 82 years old, he's still working in order to make his payments, his rent payments. He told me that when he first moved into the park, the rent was 12 1/2% of his pension, and now it is over 50% of his pension, and he was forced to go down and clean golf balls at one of the golf clubs here in town so that he can pay his rent. And the rent has gone up about 600% in the time of the ownership of that park, 500% to 600%. RW Thank you, sir. DD You're welcome. PC (unclear) RW Well, gentlemen, I think we are getting very close to going overboard on statements made. If you can make your statements very, very brief, we'll allow the statement. PC Paul Collins, 16 Prickly Pear. The gentleman, Mr. Bedig, brought up some things that have already been mentioned. Seven people were not dissenters of this, seven people recognized the fallacy and the inequity of this situation. Our rights, our God given rights, have been circumvented by a letter that a lot of people didn't bother to turn over. And again, this gentleman just said most of us pay our rent because we know that that's what we're supposed to do. We never knew until we saw this letter, and that's how this whole thing got back into this hearing, when I saw this letter saying that if we paid the rent that we're in agreement with this so-called agreement that they have, 23 pages. One better, put this out. There was one copy put into office of Silver Spur, which I did get 28 MINUTES PALM DESERT RENT REVIEW COMMISSION MEETING MAY 25, 1988 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * a copy and objected to the, well, just all kinds of it. The letter gave us the right, as far as I could see, to object to all this. We tried to stay away from it as much as we could. We have been misrepresented, we are not being represented, and more than seven of us are in opposition to this for sure. Now he brought up something about 80% of the paving is done. I work with engineers, and I guarantee that 20% of it isn't done. They've been over 80% of it, but they need to do about 80% of it over, not 20%, they need to do at least 80% of it over. And he must know because he's been around a long time. All he has to do is go up and see what's done to that place. I'm not going to say any more, but we have not, period, been represented. And it's not because seven of us have objected, seven of us feel about it. If 150 had known about it, they wouldn't have paid it either. And I suggest one more thing. If they're going on with this, put this into escrow until it's settled. Put the money he wants to hold there in escrow until it's settled. RW Thank you, Mr. Collins. Anyone else have any brief statement? Yes, sir. RN My name is Ronald Nehrenz. I live at 27 Silver Spur. Many of you people here know me, certainly Sheila and the attorney and at least one Board member knows me. I was president of the association for a couple years, secretary one year, and I represented the homeowners at the last hardship hearing. I resent very deeply the statements that have been made about the park not being represented, about anyone being harassed. I'm not on the Board now, I have no official, but I have been asked to sit in on the meetings, which I do. I do know what's going on, and I know what has happened. Everybody has been told to get out to these things, everybody has received the mail what was going to happen. The statement that Mr. Drown's made about that meeting, he was at that meeting, and we had that meeting called primarily for the attorney to state both sides. She stated the side of reaching an agreement, the side of going to a full blown hearing. She also stated what she felt a full blown hearing would get about, and that's figures that we had come up with too. She also stated what she felt an agreement, a fair agreement, might work out. Back and forth, we kicked this thing back and forth. I guess Bruce never thought I'd ever agree with him, but we both spend a hell of a lot more, with all good respect to the attorneys present, we spent a lot more money on attorneys than we needed to that could have been much better spent on the park. And I felt the law was written so that we really didn't need attorneys. But when I was president, there was a lot of pressure to get an attorney. We didn't, and the thing got resolved pretty much in favor of the park. All I want to make a statement here is that I don't know what they call representative or democratic harassment. I know of one person who has been harassed. Everybody's been asked, I've asked Mr. Collins to serve on the board a number of times, he refuses. Mr. Drown hasn't been at the park too long, and I've only seen him at one or two meetings. I spent literally hours and months on this thing, even though I was back east, Sheila can affirm to. I've tried to keep on top of everything that's going on, and I think I know the law word for word. I know what our options were both ways, and I would tell Bruce I've got mixed feelings about going to an agreement. But I think the majority have agreed to it, and I think the only way you're going to find out possibly, and I hesitate to say this, but it is possibly send out again Sheila's statement which covered the whole thing very well. I think if we sent the whole agreement out people probably wouldn't read it, wouldn't understand it all. She summarized every dollar item in their, and do you or do you not agree with this. And then we will know exactly, we will 29 MINUTES PALM DESERT RENT REVIEW COMMISSION MEETING MAY 25, 1988 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * neither one be guessing. We do know we had 180 signatures to hire the attorney and usually when you hire an attorney you let them settle the agreement. We did have people out to vote on it but the only amount we got out we don't get anywhere near a majority of the homeowners because they are not here, a lot of them don't come to them, some are old. You can't get everybody to a meeting. We had voice votes on it, and it was about 80% in favor of it. So I don't know what more you can go to. This board, and what I resent is the accusations that they're not represented, everybody can come to any meeting at any time. They've been notified by mail as much as we could afford to. But it's just disgusting to me. Now, Mr. Bedig and I haven't agreed on very many things as he will affirm. But I think we have tried, at least we're talking to each other. And I think we have tried to work something out, we have written statements about what they're going to do, and if he doesn't do it, believe it he'll here from us. But I would like to see it settled today; however, for your satisfaction, maybe the only answer is to send out those statements. Sheila stated it very succinctly. And with the statement written out of what it represents, do you favor this or don't you? You could even have rebuttals like you do in elections, if you want to. I don't know how to come out, I'm a little leery to do it because I'd like to see the darn thing settled. But that might be one answer, I don't know what else to tell you. People have been represented there. I've lived there five years now. I've been either on the Board or active in the association ever since I've been there. We've tried to get people to serve, and it's hard to do. However, we have had cooperation once we get on there. And these statements made here are completely out of context, and there's no way that anybody's been harassed. I don't think he understands what the word harassment or coercion is. Nobody's been harassed or coerced in any way, and I just want you folks to know that and, believe me, I'll sit and argue with Mr. Bruce Bedig, and I have by the hour, both by mail. And I don't agree with some of the statements he made here, but that isn't the point. We're trying to decide on this agreement right now. I thank you for your time. RW Thank you. Commissioners, do we have any more discussion, motion. Yes, ma'am. I'm sorry. CB My name is Carol Bouson, I live at 228 Country Club Drive. I'm a widow, I'm 76 years old, and I very much recent Mr. Drown taking it on himself to self-appoint himself as my guardian. I'm perfectly capable of handling my own affairs. I can think for myself. Thank you. RW Thank you. Commissioners, do we have any discussion or motions to bring before the Commission? WT Mr. Chairman, I'm prepared to make a motion, but I'd like to preface it with a comment or two, if I may. RW Help yourself. WT And I'm going to ask the City Attorney to help me when I get to the motion part. I think the concept of a rental agreement such as has been presented to us here is an excellent one. But such an agreement must really represent the majority of the people concerned. If our figures are correct, we have 124 people in favor of that agreement, and 91 opposing it. I do not feel that is a sufficient majority for us to proceed to approve that agreement as it now stands. Accordingly, with the 30 MINUTES PALM DESERT RENT REVIEW COMMISSION MEETING MAY 25, 1988 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * help of the City Attorney, I would like to make a motion to remand the proposed agreement to the hearing officer for the purpose of hearing any new evidence and also to attempt to reconcile the two sides and to amend the proposed agreement accordingly and bring it back to this board along with an up to date account of who is for and who is against. We need accurate numbers before we make a decision on it. DP Mr. Chairman, may I ask for a clarification? RW Certainly. DP Are you suggesting at this point that an attempt be made to determine who is for and who is not for this agreement? WT I think that should be part of what the hearing officer brings back to us. Not exactly who, but a numerical number. We do not need names. DP I see. Do you also desire that he would hold an evidentiary hearing as if there was no agreement? WT No, I think the hearing needs to be on this proposed agreement. However, he should allow new evidence, I think, if there is any, and I'm not certain that there is. DP Okay, on the question of who is in agreement and who is not or if there needs to be some change in the wording of the agreement to make a consensus to do that, because there is another option available. And that is to say there doesn't appear to be an agreement now, we don't think that there'll ever be an agreement, have a hardship evidentiary hearing as if there were no agreement, hearing officer, and let's not try to push this agreement any further. WT I don't think we're at that point yet. DP Great. Now I understand what you're saying. WT I want the hearing to be on the proposed amendment, concerning the proposed amendment, and see if we cannot get it, the proposed agreement, see if we cannot amend it so that most of the objections are overcome before it comes back to us. RW Is there a second to that motion. MI I'll second it with an amendment that it is the number of spaces, not the number of people. WT Certainly, agreed. (unclear from the audience) WT These are the figures that we have and signatures that we have. (unclear from the audience) 31 MINUTES PALM DESERT RENT REVIEW COMMISSION MEETING MAY 25, 1988 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * WT We probably do. (unclear from the audience) RW Mr. French, I made a count of the petitions which had been presented to us and which are contained within our packet. Mind you, it was rough count I just did before the meeting, but it was approximately 102. (unclear from the audience) WT That is part of what we're asking the hearing officer to bring back to us is an accurate count. (unclear from the audience) RW With that amendment, is there a second to the amendment. JWM Second. RW Any further discussion? (unclear from the audience) RW We'll have to address that later, ma'am. I understand what you're saying, but at this point we're not taking questions or statements from the floor. We have a motion before the Commission which has been seconded. I would ask for a roll call vote. MPF Commissioner Isbell. MI Aye. MPF Commissioner Tucker. WT Aye. MPF Vice Chairman Wade-Maltais. JWM Aye. MPF Chairman White. RW Aye. MPF The motion carries by unanimous vote. RW Now, we should probably at this point set a date which is convenient for the parties who are involved. I realize that there are a lot of people who will be out of the area during the summer time. So that's an issue that we need to address. Does the City staff have a suggestion on those lines? DP It would be our recommendation that the hearing be set within the next 30 days. 32 MINUTES PALM DESERT RENT REVIEW COMMISSION MEETING MAY 25, 1988 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * WT I feel an urgency in it also. I think the matter needs to be resolved. I understand the summer problem, but I think we need to move ahead with it so that everyone knows where they stand. This indecision must be rough on both sides. ?? Will all the homeowners be contacted by mail? RW We'll make a suggestion that that be done. WT By the City Clerk. (unclear from the audience) RW Is there a particular date. . . AR Can I ask a question? RW Yes. AR Can we determine what is going to be asked of these people, if they only approve or disapprove of the current agreement, or is there going to be an alternative proposed? It seems to me that a lot of people are going to say, well, if you're asking me if I approve of an increase or no increase, they're going to say, well, of course, I approve of no increase. And I think that the results will be biased unless there's some alternative proposed, it's an increase or. . .I mean, we don't know what these other people want, and I think that's going to skew the results. RW Mr. Phillips? DP Well, as far as the. . .are you addressing your comment to the notice, because I certainly know that by the time we have the evidentiary hearing, the hearing officer can make clear that either there is an agreement or the Commission will have to act on your petition for hardship increase. Those are the two alternatives. So, perhaps the notice might reflect that there has been a stipulation which has been discussed, there will be a further evidentiary hearing to determine whether or not there is agreement with respect to that agreement or not. And perhaps the notice could state that something about the other possibility which is available, which is a full blow evidentiary hearing on the hardship rent increase so that the residents understand that those are the two alternatives available to them under our City ordinances. AR And its my understanding that the $20 is already beyond dispute. DP That's correct. AR It's either the $10 or a full blown hearing. DP That's correct. BB I would also ask that you impose some kinds of rules of evidence as to the adequacy of the signature, the ability of the resident to vote independent of influence of either point of view so they can make the decision calmly and without. . .perhaps you may want a witness to the signature. There are any 33 MINUTES PALM DESERT RENT REVIEW COMMISSION MEETING MAY 25, 1988 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * number of problems in validating just who is voting. If this is a democratic process, perhaps we should try to impose the same kind of democratic process that a voting situation is required. That is to say, there would be full disclosure, discussion, voting, observation, and most importantly a fairness so that neither side has the ability to harass, which is a word that seems to have been used all too often already. RW I think perhaps we can leave that to the discretion of the City staff so that they as the objective party can make a decision on exactly how the voting is to be conducted and how the signatures are to be collected and that it be done in an impartial and objective manner. I hope that Mr. Phillips will agree with that proposal that the City staff make sure that the signatures are collected and the voting is done in an impartial and objective manner. Are there any other motions or comments by the Commission? Is there a motion to adjourn? V. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None VI. ADJOURNMENT Upon motion by Commissioner Isbell, second by Vice Chairman Wade-Maltais, and unanimous vote of the Rent Review Commission, Chairman White adjourned the meeting at 6:30 p.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, r MARY P. F IER, SECRET Y 34