10/24/2017 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

In addition, Mr. Erenberg's property has been the subject of ongoing licensing issues. Initially, the property was being rented without obtaining a valid license in 2016. It was only after the City sought redress through criminal prosecution that the owner sought a rental license. Upon inspection, the City noted structural deficiencies which were required to be repaired prior to the issuance of a license. Mr. Erenberg has failed to complete those repairs in a timely manner, despite the City offering extensions in time to complete such repairs. Consequently, the rental license for this property lapsed on July 31, 2017. Staff believes that the required repairs still have not been completed. The purpose of the hearing, as specified in code section 9-11-10 E 1, is to consider whether Mr. Erenberg should be designated as ineligible for a rental license based upon the physical defects observed on the property as well as the various incidents which occurred thereupon. The city council is required to hear all relevant evidence and arguments and review all testimony, documents and other evidence submitted at the hearing. The owner and/or the owner's representative must be given an opportunity to present evidence and address the council on the matter. The council has discretion as to whether to allow other parties to present evidence at the hearing but all such evidence must be relevant to the matter at hand. In conducting the hearing, the city council acts in a quasi-judicial capacity, i.e., it is weighing evidence in a specific case, rather than setting public policy as it does in its legislative capacity. The idea is to provide a fair opportunity for all relevant facts to be presented and for the council to decide, based on the preponderance of the evidence, what action, if any, should be taken regarding the rental license. The preponderance of the evidence means determining the relative weight of the evidence or deciding what is more likely to be the case than not. If the council determines that it will designate Mr. Erenberg as ineligible for a future rental license, it must make findings and issue a written decision within 30 days of the hearing. My recommendation is that the council not attempt to do so the night of the hearing. I suggest that the council direct city staff to prepare a document which includes the findings articulated by the council. The staff will then draft a resolution or similar document which may be adopted, with or without modifications, by the council at another meeting within 30 days. While the staff will ensure that the resolution is in proper form, it is important that it be based on the reasons given by council members regarding their action. In other words, a council member might say "I recommend that the city take action X regarding the rental license because the property has become a nuisance for the following reasons" and then list his or her reasons. Those reasons should be based on the evidence in the record. Other members may add or modify the list of reasons or make a different motion. In addition to the reasons that the property has become a nuisance, members may include specific criteria which Mr. Erenberg shall be required to satisfy to reestablish his eligibility for a rental license. Staff should produce a document thereafter which reflects the reasons articulated by a majority of the council and which the council may formally adopt at a subsequent meeting. The council may also continue the hearing to a later date if it believes additional time is necessary to evaluate evidence presented on October 24th. I will be in attendance at the hearing and will be available to assist the council in conducting the hearing and formulating an appropriate response. RHB 509658v1 RHB LA135-3 2