REPORT TO THE MOBILEHOME PARK RENT REVIEW AND STABILIZATION COMMISSION
October 9, 2025
FROM: ANDREW JANZ, City Attorney
Office of the City Attorney
BY: SARAH PAPAZIAN, Senior Deputy City Attorney
Office of the City Attorney
SUBJECT
Title
Actions pertaining to Country West Community, LP, formerly known as Country West Partnership, LP’s (“Owner”) rent increase application (“Application”) for Country Living Mobile Home Park (“the Park”):
1. HEARING on the Application.
2. Take one of the following actions:
i. APPROVE the full $37.07 per month non-automatic rent increase requested by Owner, in addition to the $7.82 calculated as the 1.3% rent increase permitted automatically pursuant to Fresno Municipal Code (“FMC”) Section 12-2014; OR
ii. APPROVE an amount less than $37.07 determined to be just, fair, and reasonable pursuant to FMC Section 12-2012, in addition to the $7.82 calculated as the 1.3% rent increase permitted automatically pursuant to FMC Section 12-2014; OR
iii. DENY any amount, after a determination that no amount is just, fair, and reasonable pursuant to FMC Section 12-2012, in addition to the $7.82 calculated as the 1.3% rent increase permitted automatically pursuant to FMC Section 12-2014.
.Body
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that, after holding the public hearing, the Mobilehome Park Rent Review and Stabilization Commission (“Commission”) confirm the 1.3% rent increase permitted automatically pursuant to Fresno Municipal Code (“FMC”) section 12-2014, and approve any additional amount determined to be just, fair, and reasonable pursuant to FMC section 12-2012.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
It is Owner’s right to raise the rent once a year by a specific amount tied to the CPI - in this matter, that 1.3% amount for 2025 is $7.82. This amount is not subject to resident vote or Commission adjudication. The Commission must therefore determine what additional amount, if any, is a just, fair, and reasonable rent increase to both park residents and park owner.
The full amount sought by Owner is the cost of roadway repaving throughout the park. Owner argued that the repaving is a “capital improvement” (one of the listed “just, fair, and reasonable” factors in FMC section 12-2012), rather than maintenance or repair for ordinary wear and tear (which is specifically excluded from the factors in FMC section 12-2012). Unfortunately, Owner provided no evidence or context to support their argument, despite Staff’s specific request to do so. Staff’s independent research found this conclusion is not supported by the law provided in the FMC and federal income tax laws.
The amount as calculated by Owner resulted in a “per space, per month” cost of $37.07 to fully cover the cost of the repaving. Staff (and Residents) took issue with various aspects of the calculations, including the proportion of included loan title fees, number of spaces used, and term length of the loan. Staff recalculations resulted in “per space, per month” costs ranging from $27.85 to $36.67.
In addition to protests regarding the classification of the repaving as a “capital improvement”, Residents argued the other listed factors in FMC section 12-2012 weigh against any amount in addition to the automatically granted CPI amount. They provided information on comparable mobilehome parks and community statements regarding the roadway conditions in support of their argument.
BACKGROUND
Country Living Mobile Home Park (“the Park”) is owned by Country West Community, LP, formerly known as Country West Partnership, LP (“Owner”). Per filings with the California Secretary of State, Owner’s sole general partner is another entity - Adelar LLC, whose managing member is Brenda L. Aguilar (“Ms. Aguilar”). The on-site manager (“Manager”) is Vicky DuRand (“Ms. DuRand”).
On or about Monday, August 11, 2025, Owner, through Ms. Aguilar, served the City of Fresno (“City” or “Staff”) with a copy of the 2025 rent increase application (“Application”) for the Park, and a Request for Commission Proceedings pursuant to FMC section 12-2010(b)(2). On or about Wednesday, August 13, 2025, the Country Living Mobile Home Park Residents’ Committee (“Residents”) served the City with a copy of the residents’ voting results on the Application.
In Form MRR 1-2 of the Application, Owner notated that the average rent of affected spaces was $601.18 and requested a total rent increase of $44.89. Owner attributed the requested increase to two different sources: (1) $7.82 from the automatic rent increase tied into the Consumer Price Index for the previous year as authorized under FMC section 12-2014; and (2) $37.07 from the “completion of any capital improvements or rehabilitation work related to or benefiting the mobilehome spaces” factor listed under the non-automatic rent increase list in FMC section 12-2012.
On September 26, 2025, after having reviewed all submitted material pertaining to the Application, the City served both Owner and Residents with a letter seeking supplemental documentation from each party (“Supplement Request”). The goal of the Supplement Request letter was “to identify as many missing elements likely to affect the Commission’s analysis as possible, and give both parties the opportunity to provide them.” Residents timely submitted a memo with attached documentation (“Supplemental Memo”), but Owner did not. Owner did submit an additional invoice from 2017 with summary three days after the deadline (“Supplemental Invoice”), but that was the extent of the information received.
Ultimately, following review of the Application and completion of the hearing, the Commission must approve an appropriate rent increase amount. At a minimum, that amount must include the 1.3% automatic increase under FMC section 12-2014, and should also include what amount, if any, is a just, fair, and reasonable rent increase.
DETAILED ANALYSIS
The City of Fresno Mobilehome Park Rent Review and Stabilization Ordinance (“Ordinance”) established the Commission to act as arbitrators when mobilehome park owners and residents could not come to an accord on a fair and reasonable rent increase. The Commission’s purpose is twofold - both to protect mobilehome park residents from excessive rent increases, and at the same time provide mobilehome park owners a level of rent sufficient to provide a just, fair, and reasonable return on their investment and to cover increased costs of repairs, maintenance, rehabilitation, capital improvements, services, amenities, upkeep, and insurance. (FMC § 12-2002(b).)
To perform this duty, the Commission must review the Owner’s Application and any other documentary evidence submitted, then hold a hearing where both the Owner and the Residents have an opportunity to provide evidence of what amount would be a fair and reasonable increase in rent. The Commission may take up to ten days after the closing of the hearing to make a decision on the application. Commissioners may elect to schedule a special meeting within ten days to make the final decision. FMC section 12-2012 establishes the main relevant factors a “fair, just, and reasonable” rent increase can stem from. When applying for a non-automatic rent increase, owners are required to assert which factors of section 12-2012 are relevant to their specific situation, and provide supporting documentation for each.
FMC section 12-2014 establishes that mobilehome park owners are permitted to automatically raise their rent by 75% of the previous year’s annual Consumer Price Index (“CPI”) once a year. This amount is not subject to vote by the park’s residents’ committee or adjudication by the Commission. For 2025, the automatic CPI increase was 75% of 1.7%, or 1.3%.
Park Owner’s Application
Summary
Page 3 of the Application displays Form MRR 1-2: a summary of the relevant factors, including current average park rent, requested automatic increase amounts, and identified factor(s) for non-automatic rent increases. Pages 4-5 display Form MRR 1-4: a summary of the documentation to support and contextualize the identified FMC section 12-2012 factor(s). Pages 17-36 display Form MRR 1-3: a breakdown of the monthly rent for each space and the desired rent increase of $44.89 per space.
The remainder of the thirty-eight pages are dedicated to supporting documentation, such as letters and invoices from Anderson Construction regarding the scope of work and cost of repaving the park (Application, pp. 6-9), letters sent to the City of Fresno and Residents (Application, pp. 10-12), select pages from a loan contract (Application, pp. 13-16), and two spreadsheets with no titles or context (Application, pp. 37-38).
As previously stated, Owner did not submit supplemental documentation for the missing elements identified by Staff. This failure significantly hampered Staff in evaluating the documentation and providing assessments to the Commission.
Staff Analysis of Qualification as a Capital Improvement
Owner identified one factor as the source for the non-automatic rent increase - “[t]he completion of any capital improvements or rehabilitation work related to or benefiting the mobilehome spaces specified in the rent increase application and the cost of such improvements or work”. (FMC § 12-2012(e).) The Application shows that the project being undertaken is the repaving of the Park’s roadways. (Application, pp. 6-8, 10-12.)
FMC section 12-2012(h) lists another factor to be considered when determining a just, fair, and reasonable as “[t]he need for repairs caused by circumstances other than ordinary wear and tear” (emphasis added). In Owner’s July 25, 2025 letter to the City, Owner states “the road has not been replaced for more than 30 years. The existing roadway has significantly deteriorated…” (Application, p. 10.) In the Supplement Request, Staff specifically asked Owner to explain how the repaving of the roads after 30 years would be a capital improvement rather than a repair from ordinary wear and tear, and to consider including any definitions or professional analyses their determination was based on. Owner did not submit any such explanation.
Staff independently sought further clarification between capital improvements and ordinary repairs. The FMC defines a capital improvement as “an addition or betterment made to a mobilehome park which consists of more than repair, replacement, or rehabilitation of an existing facility or improvement, which is required to be amortized over its useful life by the income tax laws of the United States, and which has a useful life of five years or more.” (FMC § 12-2003(c).) All three factors must be present to qualify as a capital improvement, and Staff’s conclusion is that the repaving fails the first two factors.
“[C]onsists of more than repair, replacement, or rehabilitation of an existing facility or improvement”
The project at hand is a repaving of the roadways, not paving what was previously unpaved roadways. (Application, pp. 6, 10.) No arguments, or evidence, to the contrary has been submitted. Repaving the Park’s roads is the repair of an existing improvement, and as such is not a capital improvement.
“[I]s required to be amortized over its useful life by the income tax laws of the United States”
Section 1.263(a)-3 of Title 26 of the Code of Federal Regulations (as authorized by the Internal Revenue Code), contains the pertinent law to determine if the repaving of the road is required to be amortized under federal income tax laws. The repaving of the road would qualify as a “restoration” improvement of real property, which must be capitalized. (26 C.F.R. § 1.263(a)-3, subsections (b)(3), (d)(2), and (k)(1)(iv).) As a cost that must be capitalized, the allowed recovery methods are listed - and amortization is not one of them. (26 C.F.R. § 1.263(a)-3(p).)
As the repaving project fails the first two factors, Staff must conclude this is not a capital improvement under the FMC - it is a repair caused by ordinary wear and tear, which is specifically not a factor to be considered when determining what is just, fair, and reasonable.
Staff Analysis of Calculated Amount
Discrepancy on title fee percentage
Owner identified $37.07 as the monthly increase from the repaving project in their Form MRR 1-2. (Application, p. 3.) However, Owner calculated the amount as $35.38 in a letter to the City. (Application, p. 11.) The calculation was shown as:
$680,932.00 [loan amount]
+ $420,741.68 [interest at 7% over 15 years, compounded monthly]
$1,101,673.68 total amount being passed on to residents
÷ 180 [15 years and 12 months per year]
$6,120.41 total amount being passed on each month
÷ 173 [spaces listed on page 11]
$35.38 monthly amount per space
In Owner’s letter to the Residents a week later, the interest had changed from 7% over 15 years to 7.339% over 15 years, and banking and title fees of $17,814.75 had been added. (Application, p. 12.) The documents from the lender indicate in two separate places that the total fees for the $940,281.25 loan were $14,018.75 - less than Owner used in the calculations. Additionally, only 72.4% of the total loan amount is accounted for in the repaving project, so a proportional share of those fees for $680,932 would be $10,152.09. Below is a comparison of the two calculations.
|
Amount as seen on Application p. 12 $680,932.00 [loan amount] + $17,814.75 [title fees] + $455,720.23 [interest: 7.339% for 15 years] $1,154,466.98 total amount ÷ 180 [15 years; 12 months per year] $6,413.71 total amount - each month ÷ 173 [spaces listed on page 11] $37.07 monthly amount per space |
Amount as calculated by Staff $680,932.00 [loan amount] + $10,152.09 [title fees] + $450,722.67 [interest: 7.339% for 15 years] $1,141,806.76 total amount ÷ 180 [15 years; 12 months per year] $6,343.37 total amount - each month ÷ 173 [spaces listed on page 11] $36.67 monthly amount per space |
Discrepancy on number of park spaces
Owner used 173 spaces in the calculations on pages 11 and 12 of the Application, but the Park has 195 spaces, as listed on the first page of Form MRR 1-3 and corroborated by County parcel records. (Application, p. 17.) This discrepancy appears to be due to seventeen vacant units (#1, 14, 21, 31, 39, 46, 53, 71, 97, 110, 116, 118, 120, 155, 181, 192, and 193.) and five units with new leases (#98, 134, 135, 144, and 177.
The FMC grants park owners the right to increase rent at spaces subject to the Ordinance once annually, but is silent as to whether a specific cost should be divided among all spaces in the Park, or only those subject to the particular rent increase application at issue. It is entirely possible that the City Council did not contemplate a situation where those numbers were not one and the same. Therefore, Staff analyzed the matter under general principles of what is reasonable and equitable, guided by the Findings and Purposes of the Ordinance itself. (FMC § 12-2002.)
The purpose of the Ordinance is to 'protect mobilehome park residents from excessive rent increases while at the same time providing mobilehome park owners a level of rent sufficient to provide a just, fair and reasonable return on their investment in mobilehome park property.' (Ibid.)
The Application shows the full cost of the repaving is $680,932. (Application, pp. 6, 8, 11-12.) Dividing that full amount among only 173 of the 195 lots puts a disproportionate burden on the subjected lots. Consider if 75% of the spaces at the park were not subject to this particular rent increase application - this logic would see the remaining 25% of the spaces pay 100% of the cost to repave the roadways. It is Staff’s conclusion that a cost derived from the park in totality should be calculated such that each individual space bears the burden proportional to the space they occupy within the park in totality.
Below is a comparison of the impact the 17 additional spaces have on the final monthly increase.
|
Staff’s calculation with 173 lots $680,932.00 [loan amount] + $10,152.09 [title fees] + $450,722.67 [interest: 7.339% for 15 years] $1,141,806.76 total amount ÷ 180 [15 years; 12 months per year] $6,343.37 total amount - each month ÷ 173 [spaces listed on page 11] $36.67 monthly amount per spaceStaff’s calculation with 195 lots $680,932.00 [loan amount] + $10,152.09 [title fees] + $450,722.67 [interest: 7.339% for 15 years] $1,141,806.76 total amount ÷ 180 [15 years; 12 months per year] $6,343.37 total amount - each month ÷ 195 [spaces listed on page 17] $32.53 monthly amount per space |
|
Residents’ Committee Supplemental Memo
Summary
Residents submitted a three-page letter outlining the objections to Owner’s Application, along with 66 pages of additional supporting documents such as emails, letters, forms and calculations. The letter establishes that Residents object to the Application on grounds such as (1) the roadway repaving does not qualify as a capital improvement under the FMC; (2) the roadway repaving is considered maintenance; (3) the roadway is not irreparable and only needs maintenance in some spots; (5) the Residents are being asked to shoulder more than the fair amount of the title fees; (6) the Owner is paying back the loan in ten years, but fraudulently asking residents to pay interest as if she were paying it back in fifteen years. Residents also argued that the “just, fair, and reasonable” factors weighed against any rent increase amount in excess of the automatically granted CPI amount. (FMC § 12-2012(c),(k).) Residents also expressed frustration with Owner, alleging she was unwilling to engage in the negotiation process. (Supplemental Memo, p. 1.)
Of note, Residents assert that Owner claimed she was told by City Staff Sarah Papazian that the roadway repaving was a capital improvement. (Supplemental Memo, pp. 2, 30.) Ms. Papazian has no recollection of speaking to Owner prior to her submittal of the 2025 Application, and is sure she did not make such a statement.
Staff Analysis of Capital Improvements and Maintenance Under the FMC
Staff has thoroughly analyzed this above in the section “Staff Analysis of Qualification as a Capital Improvement”. Residents submitted definitions from the Mobilehome Residency Law and pages from the City of Fresno Fire Department manual as evidence that the roadway repaving should qualify as required maintenance. (Supplemental Memo, pp. 9-22.) Residents also analyzed Anderson Construction’s invoice and scope of work in comparison to their website, and argue that Anderson Construction makes a distinction between “new asphalt paving” and “removal and replacement”. (Application, pp. 6-8; see also Supplemental Memo, pp. 23-27.) Staff is in agreement that under the FMC, the roadway repaving is not a capital improvement, and is instead maintenance.
Staff Analysis of Current Roadway Conditions
Residents argue that the roadways are not all irreparable and in need of replacement, but simply need some maintenance in some places. (Supplemental Memo, p. 2.) Residents included a collection of signatures from residents of the park on a community statement attesting that the roads were overall safe and could be walked or driven upon, through maintenance and resurfacing were neglected in certain areas. (Supplemental Memo, pp. 55-66.) Residents did not provide any photographs to substantiate this assertion, so Staff is unable to analyze it further.
Staff does note that in the spring of 2023, the Park was subject to a Mobilehome Maintenance Inspection, pursuant to the Mobilehome Parks Act. City Code Enforcement staff inspected the park in its entirety, and issued notices of violation for all observed substandard conditions. Staff reviewed the Notice of Violation issued to Owner at that time, and no violations of substandard roadway conditions were included. Staff has included this notice should Commissioners wish to review.
Staff Analysis of Terms of Bank Loan and Title Fees
Residents point to the maturity date listed in Owner’s business loan agreement, which says “05-15-2035” - ten years from now. (Application, pp. 14-15 see also Supplemental Memo, pp. 32-33.) Additionally, the detailed spreadsheet of the Boarding Data Sheet states the loan’s due date as “05-15-2035”. (Application, p. 16; see also Supplemental Memo, pp. 34.) All evidence supports Residents’ assertion that the overall costs incurred by Owner for the loan will be based off of a ten year repayment. Below is Staff’s analysis of how this evidence affects the calculations, with the reduced title fee as was analyzed above in the section “Staff Analysis of Calculated Amount”.
Staff’s calculation based on Owner’s 10-Yr Loan
$680,932.00 [loan principal]
+ $10,152.09 [title fees]
$691,084.09 [loan amount]
+ $286,356.21 [interest: 7.339% for 10 years, compounded monthly]
$977,440.30 total proportional amount Owner will pay to bank over life of loan for repaving
÷ 180 [15 years of Resident repayment, 12 payments per year]
$5,430.22 total amount - each month
÷ 195 [total amount of spaces in Park]
$27.85 monthly amount per space
Staff Analysis of FMC Section 12-2012 Factors Identified by Residents
Residents argue that overall, the “just, fair, and reasonable rent increase” factors weigh against any amount in excess of the automatically granted CPI amount.
In considering the “[r]ent lawfully charged for comparable mobilehome spaces in comparable mobilehome parks” (FMC § 12-2012(c).), Residents point to Ashwood Place and Millbrook Mobilehome Village as the best comparisons due to location and being subject to the Ordinance. (Supplemental Memo, p. 2.) Staff has included a Proximity Map highlighting these three parks, which does indicate they are in closest proximity. Residents also analyzed the amenities, implicating the factor in FMC section 12-2012(i), and concluded they were overall similar. (Supplemental Memo, p. 38.)
Residents then compared the three parks. For the parks where utilities were not included, Residents created an average calculation, and provided the sources for the numbers used. (Supplemental Memo, pp. 40-42.) Staff independently checked the average rent as submitted on each park’s latest rent increase application. The average rents (prior to 2025 rent increases), with utilities added in are:
|
Park Name |
Average Rent (no utilities) |
Approximate Utilities |
Average Rent Overall |
|
Country Living |
$ -- |
$ -- |
$ 601.18 |
|
Ashwood Place |
$ 543.27 |
$ 65.63 |
$ 608.90 |
|
Millbrook Mobilehome |
$ 478.91 |
$ 65.63 |
$ 544.54 |
In considering a “just and reasonable rate of return on the owner's investment in the mobilehome park” (FMC § 12-2012(k).), Residents argue that the average rent of the comparable parks supports the conclusion that a reasonable rate of return is being met. (Supplemental Memo, p. 2.) Residents also argue that Owner has taken the full automatic CPI increase each year, resulting in a total increase of 24.035% over the past nine years, which should be sufficient to cover changes to reasonable operation and maintenance expenses, implicating the factor in FMC section 12-2012(g). (Ibid.)
Conclusion.
The Commission must determine what amount, if any, is a just, fair, and reasonable rent increase to both park residents and park owner, in addition to the $7.82 calculated as the 1.3% rent increase permitted automatically pursuant to FMC Section 12-2014. Before reaching any decision, however, staff recommends that the Commission hold the public hearing to allow Owner and Residents to confer or substantiate any relevant information, as discussed above.
ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS. Pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15378, the Commission’s consideration of the Application is not a CEQA “project”.
LOCAL PREFERENCE Not applicable.
FISCAL IMPACT This matter does not impact the General Fund.
Attachments: Findings Matrix for Hearing Decision 2025-01
Owner’s Application & Packet
Request for Commission Proceedings
City Notice to Parties dated September 26, 2025
City’s Supplement Request letter to Parties dated September 26, 2025
Residents’ Committee Supplemental Memo
Owner’s Supplemental Invoice
Notice of Violation dated May 23, 2023
Park Proximity Map
SAP:th