MINUTES OF MEETING                 ASSEMBLY

COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE

 

                     Sixty-seventh Session

April 5, 1993

 

 

 

The Assembly Committee on Commerce was called to order by

Chairman Gene T. Porter at 3:35 p.m., Monday, April 5, 1993, in

Room 332 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada.

Exhibit A is the Meeting Agenda, Exhibit B is the Attendance

Roster.

 

 

COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

     Mr. Gene T. Porter, Chairman      Mr. Morse Arberry, Jr.,

Vice Chairman      Ms. Kathy M. Augustine      Mr. Rick C.

Bennett      Mr. John Bonaventura      Mr. Val Z. Garner      Ms.

Chris Giunchigliani      Mr. Dean A. Heller      Mr. David E.

Humke      Ms. Erin Kenny      Mr. Richard Perkins      Mr. Scott

Scherer      Ms. Myrna T. Williams

 

 

COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:

 

     None

 

GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:

 

     Assemblyman William Petrak, District 18

 

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

     Paul Mouritsen, Senior Staff Analyst, Legislative Counsel

Bureau

 

OTHERS PRESENT:

 

     Mr. Kirby L. Burgess, Clark County; Mr. C. Joseph Guild,

III, Nevada Mobile Home Park Owners Association; Mr. George

Flint; Mr. Jeff Beintema, Schmitt & Cook Properties; Ms.

Joan Clements, Administrator, Manufactured Housing      Division,

Department of Commerce; Ms. Lisa M. Stowell,      President,

Coalition of Manufactured Mobilehome Owners of      Nevada, Inc.;

Mrs. Lois Lazor; Mr. Galen Varien; Dr.      Barbara A. Gunn,

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

State Housing Coordinator, American      Association of Retired

Persons; Ms. Mary Jo D. Wiese; Ms.      Gail F. Burks, Staff

Attorney, Nevada Legal Services, Inc.;      Mr. Joe Grana; Mr.

Larry Osborne, Executive Vice President,      Carson City Chamber

of Commerce; Mr. Peter Echeverria; Mr.      Charlie Joerg, Nevada

Manufactured Housing Association; Mr.      Mark Brown, Nevada

State Apartment Association; Mr. Mike      Brierley; Mrs. Mae

Thorpe; Mr. Fabio Reginato; Mr. Walter      Bantz; Mr. Chris

Harris, President, Nevada Association of      Realtors; Mr. Roger

Service; Mr. John Cole; Mr. Paul Havas;      Mr. Bill Van Patton;

(See also Exhibit B attached).

 

 

 

ASSEMBLY BILL 163   Expands authorized use of money from trust

fund for low-income owners of mobile homes to include payment of

costs of moving mobile homes under certain circumstances. 

 

Mr. Kirby L. Burgess, Clark County, testified.  Mr. Burgess

advised he was speaking on behalf of Karen E. Larson, and read

Ms. Larson's testimony into the record as follows:  "AB 163 is

proposed by Clark County to address concerns that were expressed

before our board of county commissioners regarding mobile homes.

During a hearing at that time, our residents expressed a desire

to move their homes rather than accept the rent increase that

were mandated by park owners.  Many of the residents stated that

they must accept the increase because their financial situation

precluded them from moving to another reasonable location.  AB

163 intends to address this concern by allowing the existing

rental assistance fund to be used to relocate the mobile homes

when appropriate.

 

"NRS 118B established a fund which is supported by a fee charged

to mobile home park owners.  This fund is currently available to

residents who meet the income criteria and are eligible for

rental assistance.  We would propose to allow the Manufactured

Housing Division to also utilize this fund to move a manufactured

home to a new location when the applicant meets the income

criteria.  Through administrative rules, the division would then

set the criteria for moving the units and the procedure to

determine the cost effectiveness of rental subsidy for moving the

unit if requested by the resident.

 

"This bill is only intended to give the mobile home owner the

flexibility to request relocation of the mobile home unit if it

is in the financial interest of both the mobile home owner and

the currently established fund.  It is not intended in any way

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

for anyone but the mobile home owner to request or impose

relocation.  It is simply intended to provide an additional

option for tenants whose rent is raised beyond their ability to

pay."

 

Mr. C. Joseph Guild, III, Nevada Mobile Home Park Owners

Association, testified.  He said the intent of the legislation

passed in 1991, which created a rental assistance fund, was to

provide assistance with rents not with moving costs.  He

indicated the fund would not become operational until July 1,

1993, and stated the law should be allowed time to operate in

order to determine if any problems existed.  He said if needs

other than rental assistance were determined, the law could be

changed.  He said he was uncertain the fund could afford to

provide both rental assistance and moving costs.

 

Mr. George Flint testified.  He advised he was appearing on

behalf of Ms. Vickie Demas (representative for the Mobilehome

Owners League of the Silver State, Inc.), who was unable to

attend the meeting due to illness.  He reiterated the position

taken by Mr. Guild that the rent assistance fund was intended to

assist with rents, not moving costs.  He advised rents varied

little from park to park, and suggested it made little sense to

"......spend $4,000 to save $20 a month."

 

Mr. Jeff Beintema, Schmitt & Cook Properties, testified,

expressing the same opinion as that of Mr. Guild and Mr. Flint

regarding the rental assistance fund.   He suggested an owner of

a mobile home might attempt to use the assistance provided under

AB 163 to move from a mobile home park solely because he disliked

the park.

 

Chairman Porter closed the hearing on AB 163.

 

ASSEMBLY BILL 161   Prohibits, under certain circumstances,

disclosure of information obtained pursuant to investigation of

complaint alleging violation of provisions governing mobile home

parks.

 

Ms. Joan Clements, Administrator, Manufactured Housing Division,

Department of Commerce, testified, reading from prepared text

(Exhibit C).

 

Ms. Lisa M. Stowell, President, Coalition of Manufactured

Mobilehome Owners of Nevada, Inc., testified, reading from

prepared text (Exhibit D).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mr. C. Joseph Guild, III, Nevada Mobile Home Park Owners

Association, testified.  He expressed the association's support

for AB 151.  He suggested, however, as a practical matter, the

name of a complainant would have to be divulged because of the

difficulty in solving a problem if the source of the problem was

unknown.

 

Chairman Porter closed the hearing on AB 161.

 

ASSEMBLY BILL 334   Prohibits harassment of tenant of mobile home

park by landlord. 

 

Ms. Joan Clements, Administrator, Manufactured Housing Division,

Department of Commerce, testified, reading from prepared text

(Exhibit E).

 

Ms. Lisa M. Stowell, President, Coalition of Manufactured

Mobilehome Owners of Nevada, Inc., testified, reading from

prepared text (Exhibit F).

 

Chairman Porter asked Ms. Stowell if she considered the February

9th letter from her landlord to be harassment.  Ms. Stowell

replied she considered the last paragraph of the letter to be

harassment.

 

Chairman Porter closed the hearing on AB 334.

 

ASSEMBLY BILL 187   Limits increase in rent for mobile home lots

in certain counties.

 

Assemblyman William Petrak, District 18, testified.  He provided

some personal background.  He stated never had he seen a person

or group of people "exposed to the shabby and the rent gouging

tactics of the many mobile home park owners."  He spoke of a

letter he received from a 78 year-old woman, living on Social

Security benefits and a small savings account, who had been

notified of a rent increase for her mobile home park space.  He

also spoke of various conversations he had with individuals who

had experienced rent increases.

 

Mr. Petrak discussed section 5, subsection 2 of AB 187.  He

advised because 80 percent of Nevadans were "from out of state,"

it was more fair to use the Social Security Administration's cost

of living adjustment (COLA) as the basis for determining what, if

any, rent increase would be allowed than to use the consumer

price index for the west coast.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

He reviewed the proposed amendments to AB 187 set forth in

Exhibit G.  He suggested the nonrefundable fees which would be

established by the proposed amendment to section 6 would address

the financial concern raised by the fiscal note.

 

Mr. Petrak advised the "sunset clause" contained in section 13 of

AB 187 would provide an opportunity to determine the

effectiveness of the bill.

 

He encouraged favorable consideration of AB 187.

 

Mr. George Flint testified.  He advised AB 187 was a simpler

version of a bill which failed by two votes to pass in the last

legislative session.

 

Mr. Flint related approximately 14 years ago, he moved into a

mobile home park where he paid rent of $112 a month.  He stated

when he moved from the park, five years later, he paid rent of

$496 a month for the same service and the same amount of ground

space.  He advised because he did not wish to pay rent of $496 a

month, he paid $10,500 to move his mobile home to a park in Reno.

He said when he moved into Reno in 1985, his rent was $248 a

month.  He told of subsequent increases in his rent and stated he

had just received a notice of an increase to $381 a month.  Mr.

Flint stated if he had been able to pay rent of $248 a month over

the past eight years, he would have saved $8,000.

 

Mr. Flint said 2-1/2 years ago, tenants of the Palomino Park in

Reno were advised their rents would be increased from $300 a

month to $675 a month.  He suggested the owner of the park wished

to close the park, did not want to pay the cost of moving the

tenants, and used the rent increase as a means to cause the

tenants, many of whom were elderly and on fixed incomes, to leave

the park.  He stated nothing in the NRS prevented the owner from

doing what he did.  He said AB 187 would eliminate the

opportunity for such action.   

 

Mr. Flint spoke of receiving four rent increases in one year

while residing in Verda park and of being told by one individual

that she had received as many as three rent increases in one

year.

 

He suggested one cause of rent abuse arose when individuals from

other states bought mobile home parks in Nevada, for prices

higher than they should have paid, and used increased rents to

recover their excess expenditures.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mr. Flint said AB 187 would not eliminate rent increases but

would eliminate "these gargantuan, ripoff increases" and multiple

increases in a single year.  He advised, based on a rent increase

of $18 a month, the park in which he resided would recover

$72,000 more in the coming 12 months than in the past 12 months,

for which the park's residents would receive nothing in return.

 

Ms. Augustine referred to the proposed amendment to AB 187 which

would require a landlord wishing to make repairs or improvements

to a park to pay an application fee of $750 plus $1 for each lot

in the park.  She asked Mr. Petrak why, if the landlord was

paying the costs of the repairs or improvements, he should be

charged such a substantial application fee.  She suggested the

landlord might not recover 100 percent of the cost of the repairs

or improvements from the tenants and might not wish to pass those

costs on to the tenants.  Mr. Petrak advised in Escondido,

California, the fee for such an application was $775 plus $2 per

space.  He submitted the effort and cost of processing an

application would justify the filing fee.  He stated he felt the

fee was fair.   Mr. Flint also responded to Ms. Augustine's

question and explained there would be no application fee if a

landlord merely wanted to make repairs: a landlord would need to

apply only if he was seeking a rent adjustment, in addition to

the annual rent increase.

 

Mrs. Williams asked what percentage of mobile home parks were

owned by out-of-state owners or syndicates.  Mr. Petrak said he

understood approximately 80 percent of the parks in Nevada had

out-of-state owners.  He stated nine of the ten mobile home parks

in his district had out-of-state owners.  Mr. Flint also answered

and advised 80 to 90 percent of the largest mobile home parks had

out-of-state owners.

 

Mrs. Williams asked what percentage of complaints came from

tenants of parks with out-of-state owners.  Mr. Petrak replied

one would assume an abundance of complaints came from tenants of

parks whose owners had headquarters outside Nevada.

 

Mr. Petrak referred to information in a packet he distributed

(Exhibit H) concerning two mobile home parks in Las Vegas which

generated net profits of $1.3 million and whose owners were

headquartered in Michigan.  He advised the owner of Cabana Mobile

Home Park, a park close to the one in which he resided, was

headquartered in New York.  He cited other mobile home properties

which had out-of-state owners.  He contended out-of- state owners

of mobile home parks sent profits obtained in Nevada out of the

state and paid no tax to the state of Nevada. Mr. Petrak said

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

".......they're taking taxes right out of our pocket.  They're

destroying our economy.  They're building.....another level of

poverty by doing this."

 

Ms. Giunchigliani asked if "the old trailer parks which are now

considered a mobile home park" were covered by AB 187.  Chairman

Porter responded they were.

 

Mrs. Lois Lazor testified.  She advised over 28,000 owners of

manufactured homes in Nevada lived on rented lots in mobile home

parks, and were at the mercy of unscrupulous park owners who

raised rents as often and as high as they wished.  She said when

a park was sold, the new owner would immediately raise space rent

because of his large investment.  She advised some mobile home

owners were required to sign lifetime leases.  She contended a

mobile home owner's only alternatives were to pay high rent or

sell his home.  She explained if a mobile home owner's rent

became too high, he could sustain a terrible loss when, and if,

he was able to sell his home.  She stated virtually all mobile

homes were now sold on site.  She advised it was impractical to

move a mobile home once it was placed on a site.  She further

stated there were very few lots in Nevada, zoned for mobile

homes, which were either desirable or affordable.  She said, in

effect, a manufactured house, once placed on a lot, was there

permanently and must be sold on site.

 

Mrs. Lazor said she and her husband moved into Comstock Mobile

Village (Comstock) in Carson City more than eight years ago, and

invested a large portion of their retirement money in their home.

She stated when they moved into the park, the park was affordable

and represented a good way of life.  She advised the park was now

a senior citizens' park.  She said during the eight years she and

her husband had resided in the park, there had been repeated rent

increases which had not caused them concern; however, in the past

2 years, they had sustained two increases. She said for some of

the park's residents, those two increases amounted to a 28

percent increase in their rent.  She reminded the committee most

of the park's residents were senior citizens whose Social

Security benefit increases were 3 percent or 3.7 percent.  Mrs.

Lazor said many residents of mobile home parks were senior

citizens who could not afford repeated, unjustified increases in

their rents.  She asserted the last two rent increases in

Comstock were not justified by increases in the park's expenses

and would augment the gross annual income of the park's owners by

approximately $160,000.  She suggested the residents of Comstock

were more fortunate than many other mobile home owners in Nevada,

some of whom had sustained two increases in rent in one year.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mrs. Lazor said there was no law to prevent a park owner from

raising rent as often and as much as he wished; he was required

only to give 90 days notice of an increase.  She declared a

mobile home owner was at the mercy of a park owner and had no

recourse.  She suggested if AB 187 was passed, it would provide

recourse for mobile home owners.  Mrs. Lazor advised mobile home

lots brought premium rents and said lots at Lake Tahoe rented for

as much as $395 a month and lots in Reno for as much as $387 a

month.  She suggested those rents might not appear high, but one

should remember that the individual who resided on such a lot

owned his home and everything on the lot and rented only the lot

itself.

 

Mrs. Lazor referred to the two increases in rent in Comstock she

mentioned earlier and said she spoke to the park owner's son who

said she was the only resident who had complained.  She implied

other residents of Comstock had not complained because they

feared what the park owner might do.

 

Mr. Heller reminded Mrs. Lazor of a discussion in which she told

him that one of the two rent increases about which she testified

was based on road repair to be done in the park.  He asked if any

of the road repair was done.  Mrs. Lazor replied both increases

were based on prospective repair of the streets in Comstock but

the streets had not been repaired.  Mr. Heller asked if the

notice Mrs. Lazor received had indicated a rent increase

effective May 1, 1992.  Mrs. Lazor responded that was correct.

Mr. Heller asked if there had been no repair of the streets

during the following summer.  Mrs. Lazor answered very minimal

repairs were made on October 14th because the Manufactured

Housing Division had advised the owner the streets needed repair.

 

Ms. Lisa M. Stowell, President, Coalition of Manufactured

Mobilehome Owners of Nevada, Inc., testified by reading from

prepared text (Exhibit I). 

 

Mr. Galen Varien testified.  He said he lived in Oasis Mobile

Home Estates.  He stated over the years he had lived in the park,

rent had increased constantly and had increased by 485 percent

since he moved into the park.  He said such an increase destroyed

the purchasing power of mobile home owners and reduced the resale

value of their mobile homes.

 

Mr. Varien said mobile home space rents in Nevada were

unrealistic and rents for cheap apartments were less.  He said he

looked forward to a rent rollback to no more than $150 per space.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dr. Barbara A. Gunn, State Housing Coordinator, American

Association of Retired Persons, testified by reading from

prepared text (Exhibit J) and urged support for AB 187.  Dr. Gunn

provided the committee with a booklet entitled "Manufactured

Housing Park Tenants: Shifting the Balance of Power" (Exhibit K

available in the research library).

 

Ms. Mary Jo D. Wiese testified by reading from prepared text

(Exhibit L). 

 

Mrs. Williams referred to Ms. Wiese's testimony regarding living

with raw sewage and asked if the Health Department had visited

Ms. Wiese's park and issued citations.  Ms. Wiese replied the

Health Department came to the park and issued citations on a

regular basis, after which corrective action would be taken, but

the following week, the problem would recur on some other street

in the park.  She suggested the problem had been neglected so

long and the pipes were so old that removal and replacement of

the entire system would be required to correct the problem.

 

Ms. Gail F. Burks, Staff Attorney, Nevada Legal Services, Inc.,

provided written testimony (Exhibit M) and highlighted certain

portions thereof with oral testimony.  She advised in a 20 month

period there had been 166 evictions of mobile home owners for

failure to pay rent.  She said 40 of those evictions occurred in

the first six months of 1991, 102 occurred in 1992, and 24

occurred in the first two months of 1993.  She explained when a

mobile home owner was unable to pay rent, the park's owner could

take a lien against the mobile home and the owner would then lose

the mobile home through a sale by auction.  She stated in a 14

month period, 627 liens were taken against mobile homes, and

assuming those mobile homes were single occupancy homes, 627

people had lost their homes.

 

Ms. Burks directed attention to a breakdown of expenses on page 3

of Exhibit M and advised it represented an average estimate of

costs to move a single-wide mobile home.

 

She stressed the importance of using the Social Security COLA

standard (in determining annual rent increases).  She stated 75

percent of those who resided in mobile homes were senior

citizens.  She said if those individuals received Social Security

Title II benefits, their average income for 1993 was only $640

per month.  She advised in order to receive more than $640 per

month, those individuals would have had to earn over $100,000.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ms. Burks referred to Mrs. Williams earlier question regarding

the number of mobile home parks which had out-of-state owners.

She said it was difficult to determine the number due to the rate

at which mobile homes changed hands, but Nevada Legal Services,

Inc., would provide an answer by April 14, 1993. 

 

Mr. Joe Grana addressed the Chair.  He asked if Chairman Porter

could explain why AB 187 did not pertain to Douglas County or to

any county with a population of less than 35,000.  Chairman

Porter answered the bill drafter had included a clause in AB 187

to exempt rural counties and asked if Mr. Grana would like that

clause removed from the bill.  Mr. Grana answered, "Yes."

 

Mr. Galen Varien gave further testimony.  He suggested the state

of Nevada provide a place to which mobile home owners could move

their mobile homes if they were unable to afford park rents.

 

Mr. C. Joseph Guild, III, Nevada Mobile Home Park Owners

Association, testified.  He said he would offer three reasons why

the legislature should not pass AB 187.  He said, first, AB 187

would cost the state too much money.  Mr. Guild provided a

booklet of articles and position papers (Exhibit N available in

the research library).  He said the booklet (Exhibit N) contained

the fiscal note on AB 187 and advised the Division of

Manufactured Housing estimated a cost to the state's general fund

in excess of $1.5 million over a three year period.  He stated he

understood Mr. Petrak's proposed amendment to section 6 of AB 187

which would create a filing fee.  He explained calculations he

used to determine the offset which could be generated by the

proposed filing fee against the $1.5 million estimated cost of AB

187 and advised there would be a shortfall of $834,000. 

 

Mr. Guild said a second reason not to pass AB 187 was that there

was "no problem to fix."  He stated, according to the

Manufactured Housing Division's figures, between 1991 and 1992,

the average rent increase in Carson City for triple-wide, double-

wide and single-wide mobile homes was 3 percent and in Clark

County the net increase was 4.6 percent.

 

Chairman Porter asked what Mr. Guild defined as a "net increase."

Mr. Guild explained the calculations he employed to arrive at his

figure of 4.6 percent.

 

Mr. Guild offered a third reason why AB 187 should not pass.  He

said in 1991, the legislature passed a law which created a low

income rental assistance fund, effective July 1, 1993, from which

needy people would be able to obtain assistance with their rents.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

He said he had heard the fund criticized as welfare for

individual tenants, and proposed, if that were the case, then AB

187 was collective welfare and by the same logic should be

defeated.   

 

Mr. Larry Osborne, Executive Vice President, Carson City Chamber

of Commerce, testified.  He advised the Carson City Chamber of

Commerce opposed AB 187.  He stated rent control was

fundamentally bad government policy and said the result of

limiting the income of private property owners would be to reduce

the supply and quality of the housing involved and increase the

cost to the entire community.  He contended rent controls would

in fact discriminate against the poor and those on fixed incomes

and increase their problems.  He stated the chamber did not

believe AB 187 would solve the problem which the legislature felt

it must address.

 

Mr. Peter Echeverria testified.  He advised he and his wife owned

the Lucky Lane Mobile Home Park which they had built over 15

years earlier.  He said the current space rent in his park was

$270 for a single-wide mobile home and $290 for a double- wide

mobile home and there had been no rent increase for over one

year.  He advised his and his wife's retirement depended upon

their park.

 

Mr. Echeverria suggested the problem being addressed by the

legislature could be solved in other, easier ways, than those

proposed by AB 187.  He indicated one solution was through

zoning.  He stated the reason for the mobile home problem

throughout Nevada was that zoning authorities were not granting

permits to build mobile home parks. 

 

He said most of the problems he'd heard discussed during the

meeting pertained to Clark County.  He proposed if a problem

pertained to a specific county or municipality, the legislature

should authorize that county or municipality to solve the problem

at the local level.  He maintained the problem faced by the

legislature was a local problem and should be solved by local

government.  He suggested the legislature grant authority to

county governments to exercise rent control within their

jurisdictions.

 

Mr. Charlie Joerg, Nevada Manufactured Housing Association,

testified.  He said he agreed with the statements of Mr. Osborne

and Mr. Echeverria.  He stated the zoning problem was one of the

major issues faced by the manufactured housing industry.  He said

in at least the four major counties of Nevada, Clark, Washoe,

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Carson City and Douglas, there was discrimination against

placement of manufactured housing and low income housing in

general.

 

Mr. Mark Brown, Nevada State Apartment Association, testified. He

stated the association had received numerous commitments from

members of the committee that AB 187 was not intended to affect

the apartment industry, but the association still had serious

concerns.  He said the association believed the rental assistance

program provided the solution for those in need.  He stated, "If

we want to take a broad brush approach, I think we need to amend

this bill to include a restriction on any increase in grocery

prices, any increase on utility prices, any increase on

veterinary prices.  If we're out to protect those that can't

afford any increases because they're on fixed incomes, let's

really address the problem.  Let's take the whole problem on and

not just go after one segment of that."

 

Mr. Brown advised legislation such as AB 187 had a chilling

effect on the apartment industry.  He suggested recent rent

increases in mobile home parks were a result of such legislation.

He indicated the mobile home industry was already experiencing a

problem due to zoning and suggested AB 187 would further deter

investment in the industry.

 

Mrs. Williams asked the Chair for permission to comment.  She

said she did not doubt AB 187 had a chilling effect.  She

emphasized she had no mobile homes in her district.  Mrs Williams

stated AB 187 was not, nor had it ever been, rent control and was

never intended to apply to apartments.  She said previously there

had been a lack of recognition that when discussing mobile home

owners, those discussions concerned people who had property

rights and had made an investment, not "........ people who rent

an apartment and can just pick up and leave."

 

Mr. Brown responded he understood AB 187 was not intended to

affect the apartment industry but it still had a chilling effect.

He suggested out-of-state investors were encouraged to come into

Nevada and then made to appear to be "slumlords" with no concern

for their investments, which he proposed violated the trust and

agreement created by encouraging those individuals to invest in

Nevada. 

 

Mr. Mike Brierley testified.  He advised he owned Yorkshire

Mobile Home Park in Reno, Nevada, which he and his wife had built

as a park for residents 55 years old and older.  He stated

numerous programs and services had to be provided in order to

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

continue the park as one for residents 55 and older.  He said the

park was completely equipped for the handicapped, had a small

clubhouse, contained all new coaches and was one of the more

nicely landscaped parks in its area.

 

Mr. Brierley advised rents in his park were low compared to many

he had heard discussed.  He stated there had been two increases

in rent in his park since its inception and none for a period of

22 months as of July 1, 1993, at which time an increase was

proposed.  He said there was one tenant in his park who received

rental assistance through the Department of Housing and Urban

Development.  He said the department had reviewed the proposed

rent increase and determined the increase was within the

department's guidelines.

 

Mr. Brierley enumerated some of the increases in the park's

operating expenses experienced over the previous 22 months.  He

stated the provisions of AB 187 would result in a decrease in

services provided in his park and might necessitate making the

park a family park.  He said ultimately the quality of his park

would be reduced.

 

Mrs. Mae Thorpe testified by reading from prepared text (Exhibit

O). 

 

Mr. Fabio Reginato testified.  He said he owned Oasis Mobile

Estates, had been a resident of Nevada for 18 years, and was a

member and past president of the Nevada Mobilehome Park Owners

Association.  He stated he opposed AB 187.  He declared he was

shocked to see the issue of rent control resurface every two

years.  He asserted it was obvious additional staff would be

needed to administer the provisions of AB 187, and asked,

rhetorically, if the necessary funding would come from park

owners and would those park owners then be prohibited from

passing that expense on to park residents. 

 

He stated in 1991, a statute was enacted to provide assistance,

funded by Nevada's mobile home park owners, to low income

residents.  He asserted with the rental assistance program in

existence, rent control would be redundant and suggested the

existing program be given a chance to work. 

 

Mr. Reginata referred to increases in rents over the past decade

and said he, personally, had experienced a strong impact on his

operating expenses due to new government regulations.  He stated

no law, whether federal, state, county or city, had been

conducive to his business and most had added to his costs of

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

operation.  He suggested an opportunity existed to restore

credibility to the government process by showing concern for

private business and asked that the legislature stop regulating

an industry already overregulated.   

 

Mr. Walter Bantz testified.  He advised he was the owner of a 50

unit mobile home park in Reno, Nevada.  He said he obtained

information from the Manufactured Housing Division that there

were 6,123 mobile home spaces in Washoe Valley.  He said the

day's morning newspaper advertised only two mobile home spaces

for rent.  He contended the shortage of spaces for rent was due

to zoning laws, which did not permit mobile home spaces in most

neighborhoods.

 

Mr. Bantz said if the legislature passed AB 187, the worth of his

mobile home park would be reduced by $100,000 to $150,000, and

implored the committee members to vote "no" on AB 187.

 

Mr. Jeff Beintema, Schmitt and Cook Properties, testified.  He

stated he was a general manager for Schmitt and Cook Properties,

which two years earlier had purchased five mobile home parks. He

said since the purchase all utilities had been newly installed,

and each of the parks had been upgraded.  He said in some of the

parks, the number of spaces were to be reduced to create larger

spaces and make the parks both better and more attractive.  He

said if the provisions of AB 187 went into effect, his company

would be unable to do many things it intended to do.  He said the

company alone could not pay the costs but needed the help of the

tenants.  He asked that AB 187 not be passed. 

 

Mr. Chris Harris, President, Nevada Association of Realtors,

testified.  He stated the association had long opposed rent

control, in any form, because rent control artificially set rent

prices rather than allowing the market to do so.

 

Mr. Roger Service testified.  He said he did not understand why

rent control would ever exist in this country.  He suggested by

limiting park owners to rent increases on a percentage basis,

those who had been "gouging" would be rewarded and those whose

rents were low would be punished.

 

Mr. John Cole testified.  He advised he lived in Riverview Mobile

Home Park.  He said rents in the park were raised 7 percent the

previous year and, as of July 1, 1993, would have been raised 25

percent in the current year.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mr. Paul Havas testified.  He said he was a general partner in

Sierra Shadows Mobile Home Park in Reno, Nevada.  He stated rent

control would result in deferred maintenance and would reduce

eligibility for refinancing and new loans.  He said with rent

control based on cost of living increases, every mobile home park

owner would increase rents on an annual basis.  He stated, as a

mortgage broker and owner of a mortgage company, he did not feel

AB 187 was positive legislation.  He expressed pride in the

mobile home park in which he was a partner and said the park had

some of the lowest rents in the state and in the area and had

high standards with regard to aesthetic values.  He contended the

mobile home park industry was a good industry and with the

support of the legislature and the state, should improve. 

 

Mr. Bill Van Patton testified.  He stated he was a long time

resident of Carson City and was owner of Parc de Maison mobile

home park.  He advised all tenants in his park had 25 year leases

which provided for rent increases based on the cost of living,

with a three percent cap.  He stated some mobile home park owners

had as stringent controls on rents as those provided by AB 187

and lived well with that fact.

 

Chairman Porter closed the hearing on AB 187.

 

 

 

There being no further business before the committee, Chairman

Porter adjourned the meeting. 

 

                                        RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

 

 

 

                                       ________________________

SARA J. KAUFMAN                                         Committee

Secretary   

??