would not be in the best interest of Rancho de Napa residents. It is an unnecessary “solution” to a problem that simply doesn’t exist in our park and could, in the long run, be detrimental. Our understanding is that Bella Vista residents have concerns that they have been unable to successfully address with their owner and manager and are looking to the Town to solve for them. That simply is not the case for Rancho de Napa.
As Mr. Drossos explains, Rancho de Napa rent increases over the years have been minimal, and in fact have fallen below the allowed percentage in many, if not most, years. Restricting reasonable rent increases will tie the hands of our owners to maintain our beautiful park and to make capital improvements inevitably required over the long term. Our safety, quality of life, and investments in our homes will be negatively affected. We moved to Yountville, and specifically to Rancho de Napa, because of the quality of life afforded us through the careful stewardship of the park by HCA Management. To restrict their ability through a rent stabilization ordinance will surely have unintended consequences down the road.
Please do not make the mistake of thinking that the issues some Bella Vista residents have raised regarding affordability are also issues for Rancho de Napa. The two parks have different owners, different leases, different rent increase policies, different rent histories, different demographics, and different issues in general. One size does not fit all.
We hope you will review both letters from Mr. Drossos and carefully weigh the overwhelming evidence that the Town of Yountville should not impose any sort of rent stabilization ordinance on Rancho de Napa.
Sincerely,
Susan Dean and Mary Spalding
Yountville, CA 94599
and
(Mary) and (Susan)
Attachments: 3
September 4, 2026
Yountville Town Council
Town of Yountville, CA
RE: Rent Stabilization for Mobile Home Parks in Yountville Dear Council Members,
We are residents of Rancho de Napa, having installed a new home in the park in Summer 2012. We became fulltime Yountville residents in 2014.
We have attached two letters from Denny Drossos, Director of Manufactured Housing, HCA Property Management, Inc., the owners of Rancho de Napa and numerous other mobile home parks throughout California, Oregon, and Arizona, addressing the idea of rent stabilization. The first is actually a statement that was read at the May 19 Council meeting during the public portion of the meeting. The second was presented to the Council at a subsequent meeting this past summer. Both address the issue of rent stabilization that residents of our neighboring mobile home park, Bella Vista, have asked you to implement. We urge you to review Mr. Drossos’s letters and to give serious consideration to the points he raises.
We believe that Mr. Drossos provides a compelling argument for not adopting a rent stabilization ordinance in Yountville, or at least not one that includes Rancho de Napa, as it would not be in the best interest of Rancho de Napa residents. It is an unnecessary “solution” to a problem that simply doesn’t exist in our park and could, in the long run, be detrimental. Our understanding is that Bella Vista residents have concerns that they have been unable to successfully address with their owner and manager and are looking to the Town to solve for them. That simply is not the case for Rancho de Napa.
As Mr. Drossos explains, Rancho de Napa rent increases over the years have been minimal, and in fact have fallen below the allowed percentage in many, if not most, years. Restricting reasonable rent increases will tie the hands of our owners to maintain our beautiful park and to make capital improvements inevitably required over the long term.
Our safety, quality of life, and investments in our homes will be negatively affected. We moved to Yountville, and specifically to Rancho de Napa, because of the quality of life afforded us through the careful stewardship of the park by HCA Management. To restrict their ability through a rent stabilization ordinance will surely have unintended consequences down the road.
Please do not make the mistake of thinking that the issues some Bella Vista residents have raised regarding affordability are also issues for Rancho de Napa. The two parks have different owners, different leases, different rent increase policies, different rent histories, different demographics, and different issues in general. One size does not fit all.
We hope you will review both letters from Mr. Drossos and carefully weigh the overwhelming evidence that the Town of Yountville should not impose any sort of rent stabilization ordinance on Rancho de Napa.
Sincerely,
Susan Dean and Mary Spalding
Yountville, CA 94599
and
(Mary) and (Susan)
Attachments: 3
HCA PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, INC
P.O. BOX 7
NOVATO, CA 94948
(415) 892-4795 VOICE (415) 897-3825 FAX [email protected] E-MAIL “Better Communities For Better Living.”
Good evening, Mayor and Councilmembers,
My name is Denny Drossos, and I oversee the operation of Rancho de Napa Estates. I appreciate the opportunity to comment on tonight’s informational presentation regarding mobilehome rent stabilization.
I respectfully ask the Council not to move forward with a rent stabilization ordinance unless the actual data demonstrates a community-wide problem that cannot be addressed through existing laws or more targeted solutions.
My understanding is that this discussion was largely prompted by a dispute at one particular community involving the removal or separate billing of water charges that residents believed were included in their rent. That may be a legitimate concern, but it is fundamentally different from a pattern of excessive rent increases. California already has a detailed Mobilehome Residency Law, and the Department of Housing and Community Development operates a program for receiving and referring alleged violations. There is therefore an existing state process for addressing disputes over rent notices, rental agreements, utility charges, and other management practices.
A dispute involving one property should not automatically lead to a permanent regulatory system governing every manufactured housing community in Yountville.
I encourage the Council to closely review the rent histories of Rancho de Napa Estates and Bella Vista. Ask whether the numbers demonstrate rent gouging or an actual emergency.
At Rancho de Napa Estates, our increases over the past ten years have been modest and measured. Our average increase has been approximately 2.5% per year based on market rent, and our rents remain significantly below those charged by many comparable communities. We have not used our below-market position as an opportunity to impose sudden or excessive increases.
Rent stabilization can provide short-term predictability for existing residents, and I understand why that sounds appealing. However, it can also create unintended incentives. When an ordinance establishes a maximum allowable increase, responsible operators who previously increased rents by less than that amount may begin taking the full allowance each year. They do so because they cannot know whether the formula will later become more restrictive or whether they will be able to recover future increases in insurance, payroll, utilities, maintenance, and capital improvements.
HCA PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, INC
P.O. BOX 7
NOVATO, CA 94948
(415) 892-4795 VOICE (415) 897-3825 FAX [email protected] E-MAIL “Better Communities For Better Living.”
I serve on the board of the Manufactured Housing Communities of Oregon, and I have watched rent regulation evolve there. Oregon initially adopted a formula allowing 7% plus inflation. After inflation caused the allowable increase to reach 14.6% in 2023, the Legislature amended the law to impose a 10% ceiling. Beginning in 2026, larger manufactured-home communities are subject to a separate 6% limit. The lesson is not that every jurisdiction will follow exactly the same path, but that these regulatory formulas can change considerably after they are enacted.
Once a program exists, both residents and owners begin planning around the maximum rather than around the property’s actual history and circumstances.
There are also administrative costs. A rent stabilization program requires staff time, annual registrations, fee collection, notices, recordkeeping, hearings, legal review, and procedures for owners seeking a fair return. Those costs do not disappear. They are paid by the town, the property owners, the residents, or some combination of all three. Before creating that expense and bureaucracy, the Council should first determine whether the rent histories show a problem serious enough to justify it.
Economic research also demonstrates that rent control involves tradeoffs. A major study published in the American Economic Review found that San Francisco’s expansion of rent control reduced displacement among covered tenants, but also caused affected landlords to reduce rental housing supply by approximately 15%. The researchers concluded that the resulting loss of supply likely increased market rents over the longer term. Manufactured housing is different from conventional apartments, but the broader warning remains relevant: a policy can benefit current occupants while producing unintended consequences for housing availability and investment. To simplify it, rent control doesn’t work unless you put a cap on the sales price of a resident’s home, because if you don’t the new owner pays a higher price for the home upfront in exchange for cheaper rent.
At Rancho de Napa Estates, we believe assistance should be directed toward residents who truly need it. We have established a Rent Preservation Program for financially vulnerable residents who qualify. The program can freeze future rent increases, provide stability while allowing the deferred amount to be recovered when the home is eventually sold. That is a targeted safety net rather than a blanket benefit for every homeowner, regardless of income, assets, or whether the property is a primary residence or vacation home.
After I spoke at the June Council meeting, several Rancho de Napa residents approached me and thanked me for how the community is operated. They also told me they did not support a rent stabilization ordinance. Another resident advised me that a significant number of homes within the community are used as second homes or vacation properties. A broad ordinance would therefore provide the same benefit to financially secure second-home owners as it would to genuinely vulnerable residents.
HCA PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, INC
P.O. BOX 7
NOVATO, CA 94948
(415) 892-4795 VOICE (415) 897-3825 FAX [email protected] E-MAIL “Better Communities For Better Living.”
I respectfully ask the Council to begin with the evidence. Review the ten-year rent histories.
Compare current rents with competing communities. Identify whether excessive increases have actually occurred. Evaluate the existing state remedies and the targeted assistance programs already available.
If the data shows modest increases, below-market rents, and no pattern of gouging, then I ask you to consider whether Yountville truly needs a permanent rent stabilization bureaucracy—or whether the concern that prompted this discussion can be addressed directly and more appropriately.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Respectfully,
Denny Drossos
Director of Manufactured Housing
HCA Property Management, Inc.
Good evening, Mayor and Councilmembers,
My name is Denny, and I’m here to represent the ownership group for Rancho de Napa. I understand that rent control is not formally on tonight’s agenda, and from what I understand, this conversation may still be in the very early stages.
I understand why residents are concerned about rent. Housing stability matters.
People deserve dignity, predictability, and a fair chance to remain in the community they call home.
It is important to note that we have been using a lease that was negotiated with the Town and it’s attorney’s in the late 1990’s and we have religiously adhered to it’s terms.
Over the last ten years, our rent increases have been modest and measured. We have not used rent increases as a way to push people out. We have tried to balance the needs of residents with the real costs of maintaining safe, clean, and livable housing.
For example, during COVID, our increase was less than a 1% increase, only 0.65%, about five dollars. In other years, even when CPI increased more sharply, our increases remained reasonable — often around thirty dollars. That history shows restraint. It shows responsibility. And I believe that should be part of this discussion.
My concern is that rent control, if considered too broadly or too quickly, can create unintended consequences. It can discourage property improvements. It can make it harder to keep up with rising insurance, utilities, repairs, taxes, labor, and maintenance costs. It can reduce the incentive for owners to keep rental housing available. And over time, it can actually shrink the housing supply, which hurts the very residents we all want to protect.
Rent control is very expensive and time consuming for the Town and for the property owner and creates a barrier between the property owner and the residents. We have been good neighbors and would hope the Town would move carefully and look at real data. Please include responsible housing providers in the conversation. Please focus on actual abuse where it exists, rather than creating a blanket policy that may punish those who are already trying to do the right thing.
We want residents to stay. We want stability. But we also need policies that keep housing maintained, available, and sustainable for all parties.
Thank you.
The methodology used to determine the $100 million amount; The projected project costs and expenditures intended to be reimbursed; The assumptions used in determining the amount of financing required; Any feasibility study, financial impact analysis, debt analysis, or independent financial review conducted in connection with the proposed financing;
The anticipated interest rate, debt-service costs, and total repayment obligation; The expected term of the proposed debt;
The source or sources of funds that will ultimately be used to repay the debt; Whether the proposed bonds are general obligation bonds or another form of municipal financing; Whether repayment could require increased taxes, fees, assessments, reductions in services, or other obligations affecting Yountville residents; and
The financial risks to the Town if project costs exceed projections or anticipated revenues do not materialize.
This question is particularly important in light of the financial gap associated with workforce and subsidized housing discussed in the Burbank Housing presentation.
Before the Town undertakes a financial obligation of this magnitude, residents should be able to see the financial assumptions and analysis supporting the decision.
If such an analysis has already been performed, I respectfully request that it be made readily available to the public.
2. Town Manager Compensation — Salary Increases and Bonus The July 15, 2025, action concerning the Town Manager's employment agreement establishes an annual base salary of $286,440 and provides for five-percent annual salary increases from 2026 through 2030, subject to a satisfactory or better annual performance evaluation.
The agreement also provides $21,483 in bonus compensation.
I respectfully request clarification regarding the standards and accountability mechanisms associated with this compensation.
Specifically:
1. What objective performance metrics determine whether the Town Manager qualifies for the $21,483 bonus?
2. Are those metrics established in writing?
3. Are they available for public review?
4. Are the metrics measurable and independently verifiable?
5. Is there a graduated bonus structure based upon the level of performance achieved?
6. Or is the bonus an all-or-nothing payment based upon receiving a satisfactory performance evaluation?
7. Who conducts and approves the performance evaluation?
8. Does the Council publicly document the reasons for awarding the bonus?
9. What specific justification supports the five-percent annual salary increases through 2030?
10. What will be the projected total cost to the Town of these salary increases over the life of the agreement?
Performance-based compensation can be a reasonable management tool. However, for taxpayers to have confidence in such a system, the performance standards should be clear, measurable, transparent, and meaningfully connected to the compensation being awarded.
3. Interim Town Manager — Additional Compensation
I also request clarification regarding the additional compensation provided to the Interim Town Manager.
The staff report references Section 5.D.18 of the Town's Personnel Rules and Policies, which establishes a minimum out-of-class pay increase of five percent of an employee's base hourly equivalent wage. The report states that serving as Interim Town Manager involves increased responsibilities and therefore justifies additional compensation.
I respectfully request that the Town identify the specific additional duties and responsibilities that justify this increase.
If the individual was appointed Interim Town Manager with the understanding that the position would involve performing the duties of Town Manager, I would like to understand why those duties constitute an additional assignment rather than the expected responsibilities of the interim position.
If the duties changed after the appointment, I request that the Town identify what specifically changed.
I am also concerned about the fiscal-impact section of the staff report, which states:
Fiscal Impact: No
Currently Budgeted: N/A
Where is it Budgeted: N/A
Mandatory or Discretionary: Mandatory
Staff Resource Impact: No
These statements appear difficult to reconcile.
If the Town is providing additional compensation to an employee, there is a financial cost. If the expenditure is not currently budgeted, the public should be told how that cost will be funded.
I therefore respectfully request clarification of:
The exact amount of the additional compensation;
The effective date and duration of the increase;
The specific duties supporting the increase;
The authority under which the increase is considered mandatory; Why the fiscal impact was identified as "No";
Why the expenditure was identified as "N/A" under the budget categories; Which existing appropriation or fund will pay for the additional compensation; and Whether the compensation will create any additional current- or future-year budget obligations.
4. Christmas/New Year's Holiday Compensation
I also request clarification regarding paid time provided to employees during the Christmas and New Year's holiday period.
The Town's personnel policies already provide full-time regular employees with three floating holidays, or 24 hours, each year, which may be taken at mutually agreeable times. Regular part-time employees working more than 20 but fewer than 40 hours receive 12 hours under the applicable provision.
Given this existing benefit, I would like the Town to explain the additional paid time provided during the Christmas/New Year's period.
Specifically:
How many hours of paid time are provided?
Which employees are eligible?
What is the estimated annual cost to taxpayers?
How does this benefit interact with the three floating holidays already provided? Has the Town evaluated whether these benefits overlap?
Is this benefit provided pursuant to a personnel policy, ordinance, resolution, memorandum of understanding, or individual employment agreement?
I am not suggesting that Town employees should not receive reasonable compensation or benefits. Rather, I am asking that the Town clearly account for the total cost of compensation and benefits and explain the rationale for overlapping or additional benefits.
Request for Public Accountability
The individual issues described above may appear to be separate personnel or financial matters.
Collectively, however, they raise an important question about the Town's approach to fiscal responsibility and public accountability.
The Town is entrusted with taxpayer funds. Residents should be able to understand not only whether an expenditure is technically permissible, but also why it is necessary, how much it will ultimately cost, how it is being funded, and what long-term obligations it creates.
I respectfully request that the Town Council:
1. Provide written responses to the questions raised in this public comment;
2. Make supporting financial analyses and documentation available to the public;
3. Clearly identify the funding source for new or increased expenditures;
4. Provide measurable performance criteria when approving performance-based compensation;
5. Clearly distinguish between mandatory and discretionary expenditures; and
6. Ensure that future staff reports accurately describe the fiscal impact of compensation and other financial commitments.
Transparency is particularly important when decisions involve millions of dollars in public financing or long-term personnel obligations.
A fiscally responsible government should not simply ask whether it can afford something today. It should also ask whether it is prudent, sustainable, properly justified, and fair to the residents who will ultimately bear the cost.
I respectfully ask the Mayor and Town Council to provide the public with the documentation and explanations necessary to evaluate these decisions and to ensure that Yountville's financial commitments are made with appropriate diligence, transparency, and accountability.
Thank you for placing this comment into the official meeting record and for addressing these concerns.
Respectfully submitted,
Timothy Dowling
Yountville Resident / Taxpayer
9/14/26
Public Comment
To: Yountville Town Council
From: Carrie Hays
CC: John Ferons, Interim Town Manager; Hillary Gaede, Town Clerk Date: September 12, 2026
Re: Comment to Council: The 9/21 Candidate Forum needs to be rescheduled I don’t know how the September 21 date for the upcoming Candidate Forum was selected nor who was involved in the date selection. Regardless, I am writing to urge the Council to use its voice and influence with the Chamber to support rescheduling the forum two important reasons:
1. September 21 is Yom Kippur, the holiest day of the Jewish calendar. It is a day of fasting, prayer, and religious observance, making it a significant barrier for Jewish candidates and voters who observe the holiday.
Importantly, the evening of September 21 is when Yom Kippur concludes and those observing it break their fast. Conducting the Candidate Forum therefore directly conflicts with an important part of the observance and of Judaism.
For context, to schedule the candidate forum on Yom Kippur would be comparable to scheduling one on a major holy day such as Easter.
2. One of the five Council candidates, Jessi Budgen, is unable to attend on September 21. The absence of any candidate means that voters would not have equal opportunity to hear from all five candidates in the same forum and in the same format (i.e., in person) and to make their own, fully informed comparisons among the candidates.
To proceed without all five candidates raises questions about the decision-making process - and is highly prejudicial and illogical.
For these two reasons, rescheduling the forum to a date when all five candidates can participate would provide an equitable and inclusive opportunity for voters and candidates alike.
FYI, I have sent the same message to all five Council candidates, Natalie Leighton, Chamber CEO, and as a Letter to the Editor of the Yountville Sun.
Thank you,
Carrie