Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Mobile Home Rent Stabilization topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Mount Shasta council advances mobile‑home rent stabilization ordinance after contested public hearing
Summary
Council members voted to advance a draft mobile‑home rent‑stabilization ordinance for a second reading after staff and residents clashed over whether to count utility pass‑throughs when measuring increases. Staff says base rent rose an average 10.1% in the period reviewed; park management disputes that figure.
The Mount Shasta City Council voted to advance a proposed mobile‑home rent stabilization ordinance to a second reading after a lengthy public hearing that split residents and park management over how to calculate rent increases.
City staff presented a draft ordinance aimed at the one mobile‑home park within city limits, Shasta Horizons, and said a staff review of resident billing data shows base rent increases averaging about 10.1% for units examined. "When you take those out or reprogram those numbers to show rent as of January 1st to rent on December 31st, the average then is 10.1%, not 6.1%," a staff presenter said, summarizing the staff analysis and specific unit examples.
Park representatives disputed the staff math. "A rent stabilization ordinance for this park is not only unnecessary, it is a bad policy for the residents," said Corey McNulty, speaking on behalf of Shasta Cascade Mobile Home Park. McNulty said the park's latest increase was 3.8% tied to CPI and that utilities are pass‑through charges that should not be combined with base rent: "Utilities are pass‑through charges. The park does not control those rates, and we do not profit from that."
Park manager Kim Lattus also urged caution and said management had not been asked to provide certain financial records before the staff report was compiled. "Before adopting an ordinance that will permanently regulate the only mobile home park in the city, shouldn't the council review information from both residents and management?" Lattus asked.
Residents described steeper out‑of‑pocket increases when utilities that were formerly included in rent were itemized and billed separately. One councilmember and several speakers calculated that, when adding utilities that were once included, some households saw increases approaching 40% over three years. "If that has been a part of your rent for 10 years and then it suddenly gets pulled out and you're paying it on top of the legally allowable increase, at the end of the day you don't care how it's coming out of your pocket, it is still an increase," a resident said.
Council members asked staff clarifying questions about vacancy‑control language and whether calculations were applied per unit. Staff said the proposed ordinance regulates base space rent only and does not include utility pass‑throughs in the ordinance's percentage caps, but acknowledged the practical effect on residents when an item formerly included in rent is shifted to a separate charge.
After discussion, the council member who made the motion said the measure should proceed as drafted and moved to advance the ordinance (chapter 5.90) to a second reading. The motion passed by voice vote with no opposition recorded on the motion. The council did not adopt the ordinance tonight; advancement schedules the ordinance for further consideration at a subsequent council meeting.
The debate highlighted a factual dispute central to the policy choice: park management urged that base rents are modest and that improvements on the property require revenue, while residents and some council members emphasized the combined rent‑plus‑utilities increase that affects homeowners on fixed incomes.
The council also agreed to follow up on several related items, including discussion of trash billing practices for the mobile‑home park at a future meeting. The ordinance will return for a subsequent reading where the council may vote on adoption.
